Exhibit C
SCE Depreciation Testimony in
2015 CPUC General Rate Case
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 1
G:\WORD\2008\0800068\WatsonRRDirect.doc
DOCKET
§§§§§§§
DIRECT TESTIMONYof
DANE A. WATSON
on behalf ofSOUTHERN CALIFORNIAL EDISON COMPANY
(Revenue Requirement)
(Filename: DWatsonRRDirect.doc)
Table of Contents
Glossary of Acronyms and Defined Terms ........................................................................ 2 I. WITNESS IDENTIFICATION AND QUALIFICATIONS .................................. 4 II. ASSIGNMENT AND SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS .................................... 6 III. DEPRECIATION ANALYSIS PHILOSOPHY..................................................... 8 IV. SCE BOOK DEPRECIATION STUDY .............................................................. 14
A. Summary of the SCE Study........................................................................... 14 B. Overview of Depreciation Study Method...................................................... 15 C. Production and Other Production Plant ......................................................... 18
1. Life of Assets ..................................................................................... 18 2. Net Salvage of Production and Other Production Assets .................. 20 3. Depreciation Rate for Production and Other Production Assets ....... 20
D. Transmission, Distribution, and General Property ........................................ 22 1. Life of Transmission, Distribution, and General Assets.................... 22 2. Net Salvage Rates Transmission, Distribution, and General............. 24 3. Depreciation Rates for Transmission, Distribution, and General
Property.............................................................................................. 25 E. Vintage Year Depreciation of General Plant Assets, FERC Accounts
391-398 .......................................................................................................... 27 V. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................... 29 AFFIDAVIT ..................................................................................................................... 30
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 2
G:\WORD\2008\0800068\WatsonRRDirect.doc
Glossary of Acronyms and Defined Terms
Acronym/Defined Term Meaning
AR-15
BG
FERC Accounting Release 15
Broad Group
Commission California Public Utility Commission or (“CPUC”)
Depreciation Study SCE Book Depreciation Accrual Rate Study at December 31, 2012
EEI Edison Electric Institute
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
SDP Society of Depreciation Professionals
SCE Southern California Edison Company
SPR
SP U-4
Simulated Plant Record Method
Standard Practice U-4
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 3
G:\WORD\2008\0800068\WatsonRRDirect.doc
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 4
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF1DANE A. WATSON2
I. WITNESS IDENTIFICATION AND QUALIFICATIONS3
Q. Please state your name and business address.4
A. My name is Dane A. Watson. My business address is 1410 Avenue K, Suite 5
1105B, Plano, Texas 75074.6
Q. By whom are you employed and in what position?7
A. I am a Partner of Alliance Consulting Group. Alliance Consulting Group 8
provides consulting and expert services to the utility industry.9
Q. On whose behalf are you testifying in this proceeding?10
A. I am filing testimony on behalf of Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”), 11
Q. Please describe your educational background.12
A. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University 13
of Arkansas at Fayetteville and a Master's Degree in Business Administration 14
from Amberton University. 15
Q. Please describe your professional experience.16
A. Since graduation from college in 1985, I have worked in the area of depreciation 17
and valuation. I founded Alliance Consulting Group in 2004 and am responsible 18
for conducting depreciation, valuation, and certain accounting-related studies for 19
clients in various industries. My duties related to depreciation studies include the 20
assembly and analysis of historical and simulated data, conducting field reviews, 21
determining service life and net salvage estimates, calculating annual 22
depreciation, presenting recommended depreciation rates to utility management 23
for its consideration, and supporting such rates before regulatory bodies. 24
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 5
My prior employment from 1985 to 2004 was with Texas Utilities Electric 1
Company and successor companies (“TXU”). During my tenure with TXU, I was 2
responsible for, among other things, conducting valuation and depreciation 3
studies for the domestic TXU companies. During that time, I served as Manager 4
of Property Accounting Services and Records Management in addition to my 5
depreciation responsibilities.6
I have twice been Chair of the Edison Electric Institute (“EEI”) Property 7
Accounting and Valuation Committee and have been Chairman of EEI’s 8
Depreciation and Economic Issues Subcommittee. I am a Registered Professional 9
Engineer in the State of Texas and a Certified Depreciation Professional. I am a 10
Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) 11
and served for several years as an officer of the Executive Board of the Dallas 12
Section of IEEE. I am also currently Past-President of the Society of 13
Depreciation Professionals.14
Q. Do you hold any special certification as a depreciation expert?15
A. Yes. The Society of Depreciation Professionals (“SDP”) has established national 16
standards for depreciation professionals. The SDP administers an examination 17
and has certain required qualifications to become certified in this field. I met all 18
requirements and hold a Certified Depreciation Professional certification. 19
Q. Have you previously testified at any regulatory commission?20
A. Yes. I have conducted depreciation studies and filed testimony or testified on 21
depreciation and valuation issues numerous regulatory bodies as listed in my 22
Attachment F of this exhibit.23
24
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 6
II. ASSIGNMENT AND SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS1
Q. What is your assignment in this proceeding? 2
A. The purpose of my testimony is to:3
� Discuss the recent SCE – Book Depreciation Accrual Rate Study at 4
December 31, 2012, completed for SCE assets (“Depreciation Study”); 5
and support and justify the recommended depreciation rate changes for 6
SCE assets7
Q. Are any assets not included in your depreciation proposal in this proceeding? 8
A. Yes. I have excluded from my testimony depreciation proposals for the San 9
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Mohave Generating Station, and Four 10
Corners Generating Station. These have special circumstances around them and 11
SCE is sponsoring testimony regarding the cost recovery periods for those assets.12
Additionally, SCE is addressing costs associated with the decommissioning of 13
Mountainview units 1 and 2 as well as Solar 2.14
Q. Please summarize your conclusions regarding depreciation rate changes for 15
SCE assets based on the results of the Depreciation Study.16
A. The Depreciation Study and analysis performed under my supervision fully 17
support SCE’s proposed depreciation rates. The Depreciation Study shows SCE’s 18
proposed rates applied to year-end 2012 depreciable plant balances. The change 19
in depreciation expense as compared to the depreciation rates approved in the 20
Company’s 2012 GRC applied to December 31, 2012 investment is an increase of 21
approximately 7.66 percent or $106 million. The Depreciation Study follows the 22
Commission’s long-standing precedent for straight line depreciation in 23
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 7
accordance with the CPUC Standard Practice U-4 (“SP U-4”). In this way, all 1
customers are charged for their appropriate share of the capital expended for their 2
benefit. In order to ensure intergenerational equities, the Commission should 3
adopt the life and net salvage parameters proposed in this study. SCE’s 4
depreciation rates should be set at the levels supported in the Depreciation Study 5
in order to recover SCE’s total investment in property over the estimated 6
remaining life of the assets.7
Q. How is the Depreciation Study used to determine SCE’s depreciation expense 8
for the Test Year?9
A. SCE uses depreciation rates determined in the Depreciation Study to calculate the 10
appropriate depreciation expense for the Test Year. The information presented in 11
the Depreciation Study is based on 2012 year-end depreciable plant balances and 12
all of the conclusions are based on those balances. 13
14
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 8
III. DEPRECIATION ANALYSIS PHILOSOPHY1
Q. Please describe the depreciation analysis philosophy reflected in the current 2
Depreciation Study.3
A. The objective of any sound depreciation philosophy should be the matching of 4
expense with revenue over the life of the asset. Revenue, in this context, 5
represents the ability of an asset to generate value, or usefulness—in other words, 6
the useful life. In general, the life of the asset is determined by several factors 7
including the rate of physical deterioration, obsolescence, weather, maintenance, 8
or (in some cases) the economic usefulness of an entire operating unit. The 9
function of depreciation is to recognize the cost of an asset spread over its useful 10
life. Book depreciation techniques should not accelerate or defer the recovery of 11
an asset in comparison to its appropriate useful life in order to maintain 12
intergenerational equity.13
Q. What objective should the Commission strive to achieve in setting 14
depreciation rates?15
A. The objective of computing depreciation is to ensure that all customers using the 16
assets pay their pro rata share for the investment, including the cost of retirement.17
This objective is achieved by allocating the cost or depreciable base of a group of 18
assets over the service life of those assets, on a straight line basis, by charging a 19
portion of the consumption of the assets to each accounting period. 20
21
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 9
Q. Is this objective consistent with Commission rules and historic practice?1
A. Yes. As evidenced by SP U-4 and the Commission’s prior rate decisions, the 2
Commission has a long standing practice of establishing depreciation rates using 3
the straight line depreciation method based on the actual historic data of the 4
utility. The straight line method of depreciation operates by collecting a pro rata 5
share of the cost of the investment, including removal cost, from all customers 6
that use the asset over its useful life. 7
Q. What is the best evidence that the Commission can rely on to ensure that the 8
cost of certain assets are ratably recovered over the service life of the asset? 9
A. The best evidence is the actual experience of the specific group of assets being 10
analyzed. This evidence is found in the Depreciation Study based on plant 11
investment in service at December 31, 2012.12
Q. What happens when depreciation rates are not adjusted to reflect the actual 13
life and retirement characteristics of the assets?14
A. When depreciation rates are set at a level that does not reflect the actual life and 15
retirement characteristics of a utility’s assets, the cost of the asset will not be 16
recovered on a pro rata basis from all customers that use the asset. For example, 17
in instances where the net salvage rate for certain plant accounts is set at a level 18
that is insufficient under current and projected conditions to recover the cost of 19
the asset, SCE will not accrue a reasonable level of removal cost over the useful 20
life of the plant asset. This, in turn, means that future customers will have to pay 21
a disproportionate share of the removal costs to make up for the payment 22
deferrals. 23
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 10
Q. Is the situation you just described at issue in this case? 1
A. Yes. Removal cost has been increasing over time, which calls for a higher 2
negative net salvage component (mitigated by longer lives) and a slight increase 3
in the depreciation rates to reflect this fact. SCE’s depreciation reserve position 4
(where the actual depreciation reserve is lower than theoretically indicated) is 5
evidence of the historical under recovery of costs through depreciation rates. 6
Consequently, these amounts, as well as all remaining investment, should be 7
recovered on an equal basis from current and future customers within the8
estimated remaining life of the assets.9
Q. What actions should be taken in order to remedy the changes in life and net 10
salvage?11
A. The Commission should approve SCE’s proposed depreciation rates which 12
accurately reflect service life and net salvage projections and experience for 13
SCE’s existing assets. The depreciation rates proposed in the Depreciation Study 14
accurately reflect SCE’s current experience and future expectations and also allow 15
for the recovery of depreciation expense that has been under-accrued in the past. 16
In addition, adoption of the proposed depreciation rates should ensure, on a going 17
forward basis, that current SCE customers pay their pro-rata share of the 18
investment over the remaining life of the investment. This ensures that future19
customers are not unduly burdened by having to pay a disproportionate share of 20
any remaining investment balance for removal costs at the end of the asset’s life.21
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 11
Q. With historical net salvage rates more negative than what you are 1
recommending, why do you believe the proposed net salvage rates are 2
reflective of future expectations?3
A. There are many factors and pressures that will continue to increase the actual 4
removal cost necessary to retire assets over time and resulting net salvage rates 5
will likely continue to increase in the near future. The accuracy of the industry-6
standard Compatible Unit estimating process ensures that the appropriate costs are 7
captured as removal costs. However, some historical changes in accounting that 8
occurred in the 1990’s and 2000’s (such as more accurately allocating or charging 9
construction-related activities to capitalized asset costs and removal cost) had a10
more immediate effect on the removal costs than it did on the asset base that is 11
being retired in the net salvage calculations. The calculation of the net salvage 12
percentage uses the following formula:13
Net Salvage Ratio = (Gross Salvage – Removal Cost) / Cost of retired Assets14
The net salvage percentage is calculated by dividing the net salvage spent by the 15
asset cost being retired. The temporarily lower basis for the denominator (asset 16
cost) in the net salvage percentage formula (caused by the assets recently retired 17
generally not receiving the higher level of loading), would cause the percentage to 18
be more negative than expected in the future when the asset cost basis (with the 19
higher loading on later additions) catches up to the removal cost. All else equal, 20
as SCE moves forward in time, it is anticipated that eventually the experienced 21
net salvage rates may stabilize and perhaps moderate to some degree from the 22
rates currently being experienced as it relates to these accounting changes. While 23
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 12
these changes are not quantified, the depreciation study net salvage 1
recommendations are very conservative as compared to the historical indications, 2
in part, in order to reflect this difference. It should be noted that there are other 3
factors (such as inflation, additional governmental and environmental 4
requirements, etc.) that may move in the other direction and continue to move the 5
net salvage factors more negative over time. 6
Q. Have you reviewed SCE’s removal cost allocation practices?7
A. Yes. I have analyzed the process that SCE uses to allocate costs between 8
construction and removal. For most types of projects using internal or contract 9
labor, SCE uses a sophisticated set of allocation percentages based on the type of 10
project and configuration of assets to determine the capital cost and removal cost 11
for a project. The levels of work effort for construction and removal activities are 12
separately defined and the portion of total work effort related to removal activities 13
is the basis for the allocation of labor costs to removal. For other types of 14
projects, the field will directly charge time spent on removal activities to a 15
removal work order. The methodology and detailed nature of SCE’s process16
ensures the appropriate allocation of cost.17
Q. Will the theoretically higher current cost of emergency-related replacements 18
or overtime work affect the projection of future removal percentages?19
A. No. Over the past few years, the percentage of labor related to normal and 20
“premium” labor has been very constant. It is simply speculation that as the 21
assets get more mature, and therefore have higher levels of planned replacements,22
that the retirements related to emergency work will decrease as a percentage of 23
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 13
total retirements. In reality, with the significant replacement programs currently 1
in place, the facts that the level of premium labor hours is fairly constant in light 2
of those programs and that the realized net salvage percentages are increasing 3
would tend to anecdotally negate that conclusion. There is as strong a rationale 4
that the exact opposite could occur. Some emergency work will be due to non-5
age related causes such as cars hitting poles. For these types of events, the level 6
of replacement programs, the condition-related inspection programs and the age 7
of the assets would not logically be coincident with whether emergency work was 8
performed. In addition, as the assets get older, it is also logical to assume that 9
more of the assets will fail and require emergency work due to age, not less. 10
Related to the concept of less overtime being required when there is more 11
“scheduled” replacement work, logic would also dictate the possibility of just the 12
opposite – the more work that is scheduled with a finite number of workers, the 13
fewer normal hours available to do work other than the “scheduled” work. Under 14
that paradigm, more overtime would be necessary, not less.15
16
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 14
IV. SCE BOOK DEPRECIATION STUDY1
A. Summary of the SCE Study2
Q. Have you prepared a Depreciation Study for SCE?3
A. Yes. I undertook a comprehensive analysis of annual depreciation for SCE that is 4
based on SCE’s depreciable plant in service as of December 31, 2012. The 5
Depreciation Study analyzed the property characteristics of SCE’s production 6
plant, other production plant, transmission plant, distribution plant, and general 7
plant and proposes depreciation rates for these assets. The study report is in this 8
exhibit, following the testimony.9
Q. What depreciation rates are you recommending in this proceeding?10
A. My recommended depreciation rates for SCE are provided in Appendix A of this 11
exhibit. Based on updated service life and net salvage rates for SCE’s depreciable 12
plant in-service as of December 31, 2012, I derived the appropriate depreciation 13
rates for production plant, other production plant, transmission plant, distribution 14
plant and general plant. As discussed previously, I am not proposing depreciation15
rates for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Mohave Generating Station,16
or the Four Corners Generating Station. The Company has elected to address 17
those assets given the unique circumstances. 18
Q. When did the last change in SCE’s depreciation rates occur?19
A. The last change in SCE’s depreciation rates became effective as a result of the 20
2012 GRC. 21
Q. Are you recommending changes from the lives and net salvage approved in 22
the 2012 GRC?23
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 15
A. Yes. I am recommending extending lives in many of the accounts and moving to 1
a more negative net salvage to reflect the higher level or removal cost being 2
experienced by SCE. 3
Q. What has changed since the Company’s last comprehensive depreciation 4
study?5
In general, the depreciation study indicates an increase in lives in a number of 6
accounts. Within the Transmission and Distribution function, seven accounts are 7
experiencing longer lives, one account is experiencing a shorter life and the lives 8
for the remaining accounts remain the same as approved in the 2012 GRC with a 9
few minor dispersion curve changes. Net salvage for the majority of SCE’s asset10
accounts are reflecting an increasingly negative percentage with five accounts 11
remaining the same and one account net salvage moving less negative. The 12
removal costs for transmission and distribution plant continues to rise. Including 13
three more years of experience in the life and net salvage analysis allows a better 14
understanding of the trends exhibited over time in the historical experience. In 15
addition, with all else being equal, inflation alone will move the net salvage 16
factors more negative simply from extending lives (as done in the Company’s 17
recommendations). More detailed analysis is provided in later sections and in the 18
Depreciation Study report.19
B. Overview of Depreciation Study Method20
Q. What definition of depreciation did you use in preparing your Depreciation 21
Study and testimony?22
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 16
A. The term "depreciation," as I use it, is a system of accounting that distributes the 1
cost of assets, less net salvage (if any), over the estimated useful life of the assets 2
in a systematic and rational manner. It is a process of allocation, not valuation. 3
Depreciation expense is systematically allocated to accounting periods over the 4
life of the assets. The amount allocated to any one accounting period does not 5
necessarily represent the loss or decrease in value that will occur during that 6
particular period. Thus, depreciation is considered an expense or cost, rather than 7
a loss or decrease in value. SCE accrues depreciation based on the original cost 8
of all property included in each depreciable plant account. On retirement, the full 9
cost of depreciable property, less any net salvage amount, is charged to the 10
depreciation reserve.11
Q. Please describe your Depreciation Study approach.12
A. I conducted the Depreciation Study in four phases. The four phases are: Data 13
Collection, Analysis, Evaluation, and Calculation. I began each of the studies by 14
collecting the historical data to be used in the analysis. After the data had been 15
assembled, I performed analyses to determine the life and net salvage percentage 16
for the different property groups being studied. As part of this process, I 17
conferred with field personnel, engineers, and managers responsible for the 18
installation, operation, and removal of the assets to gain their input into the 19
operation, maintenance, and salvage of the assets. The information obtained from 20
field personnel, engineers, and managerial personnel, combined with the study 21
results, is then evaluated to determine how the results of the historical asset 22
activity analysis, in conjunction with SCE’s expected future plans, should be 23
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 17
applied. Using all of these resources, I then calculated the depreciation rate for 1
each function.2
Q. What property is included in the Depreciation Study?3
A. There are five distinct classes of property in this study: Production, Other 4
Production, Transmission, Distribution, and General Property. The Production 5
plant functional group consists of all structures, boiler plant equipment, 6
turbogenerator equipment, accessory electrical equipment, and other 7
miscellaneous assets used to generate electricity at SCE’s power plants. The 8
Other Production function consists of similar assets used at SCE’s combustion 9
turbine and solar facilities. The Transmission plant functional group consists of10
structures, substations, and transmission lines used in the transmission of energy 11
to the distribution system. The Distribution plant functional group consists of12
structures, substations, transformers, meters, services, distribution lines, guard 13
lights and street lighting used in the distribution and end use of energy on the 14
distribution system. The General plant functional group contains facilities 15
associated with the overall operation of the business such as land and water rights, 16
office equipment and computers rather than with a specific transmission, or 17
distribution classification.18
Q. What depreciation methodology did you use?19
A. The Broad Group (“BG”), straight-line, remaining-life depreciation system, was 20
employed to calculate annual and accrued depreciation in the studies for all plant 21
except small dollar item assets found in FERC Accounts 391-398. The BG22
methodology is the same method used in prior studies and has been approved by 23
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 18
this Commission in prior dockets both for SCE and other companies within 1
California.2
C. Production and Other Production Plant3
1. Life of Assets4
Q. Please describe the methodology you used to determine life for production 5
and other production plant. 6
A. For Production and Other Production plant, most components are expected to 7
have a retirement date concurrent with the planned retirement date of the 8
generating unit. The terminal retirement date refers to the year that each facility9
will cease operations. The terminal retirement date along with the interim10
retirement characteristics of the individual assets that will retire prior to the 11
facility ceasing operation, describe the pattern of retirement of the assets that 12
comprise a generating unit. The estimated terminal retirement dates for the 13
various generating units were determined based on consultation with SCE14
management, financial, and engineering staff and are shown in Appendix D. 15
Interim retirement rates were determined using historical analysis of the past 10 16
years of retirements along with professional judgment.17
Q. What is an interim retirement rate?18
A. An interim retirement rate uses Company history for each account and functional 19
group projects how many of the assets or units within a facility that are currently 20
in-service will retire each year prior to the final retirement of the whole facility, 21
using historical analysis and judgment. The life span procedure assumes all assets 22
are depreciated (straight-line) for the same number of periods and retire at the 23
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 19
same time (the terminal retirement date). Adding interim retirement rates to the 1
procedure reflects the fact that some of the assets at a power plant will not survive 2
to the end of the life of the facility, but will be retired earlier than the terminal life 3
of the facility and should be depreciated (straight-line) over a shorter time frame 4
to match their projected lives. 5
In this study, we analyzed each account separately to estimate an interim 6
retirement rate for FERC Accounts 331-336. No assets in Accounts 311-3167
were included in study. Assets in the Other Production (FERC Accounts 341-8
346) function have very limited retirements, so no interim retirement curve is 9
incorporated for those units. 10
Q. Is this the typical approach that Alliance Consulting Group uses in a 11
production depreciation rate computation?12
A. No. Typically, Alliance uses an Iowa curve modeled to project interim 13
retirements. SCE has used the interim retirement rate methodology in its GRC 14
cases stemming back to the early 1980’s. An interim retirement rate provides15
similar results although the interim retirement rate method will not as effectively 16
reflect the changing pattern of retirements over the life of the assets as will the 17
interim retirement curve method. Since the interim retirement rate methodology 18
was approved by the CPUC in prior proceedings, it is used in this study. 19
Q. Why is it critical to include interim retirements in the depreciation rate 20
computation?21
A. Interim retirements model how plant assets are actually retired prior to a terminal 22
retirement of an entire facility. Excluding interim retirements means that in the 23
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 20
future all production investment will remain in service for depreciation purposes, 1
until the facility retires, even though some of those assets will be functionally 2
retired.3
2. Net Salvage of Production and Other Production Assets4
Q. What is the significance of net salvage rates for SCE Plant assets?5
A. In general, net salvage values are the amount received for retired property 6
(salvage) less any costs incurred to sell or remove the property (removal). When 7
salvage exceeds removal (positive net salvage), the net salvage reduces the 8
amount to be depreciated over time. When removal exceeds salvage (negative net 9
salvage), the negative net salvage increases the amount to be depreciated. In this 10
Depreciation Study, the net salvage percentages were calculated for each property 11
account.12
Q. What are the currently approved net salvage values for Production and 13
Other Production assets?14
A. The currently approved net salvage rates for Production, Nuclear, Hydro and 15
Other Production are shown in Appendix C..16
3. Depreciation Rate for Production-related Assets17
Q. Please describe the results of the Depreciation Study for Production Plant.18
A. The results of the analysis conducted in the Depreciation Study, based on the 19
service life of production assets and the revised net salvage rates, resulted in a20
decrease to SCE’s depreciation rates for production plant. SCE’s present 21
depreciation rates were compared to the Depreciation Study recommendations in 22
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 21
Appendix B. The rates proposed for Production assets would be a decrease of 1
approximately 11.1 percent from SCE’s present depreciation rates. 2
Q. Please describe the major changes that resulted in the decrease in Steam 3
Production Plant depreciation rates.4
A. The major reasons for the decrease in depreciation rates are from changes in the 5
decommissioning estimates due to base year updates and slightly higher inflation 6
analyses, new investment added to plant since the last GRC, and the life extension 7
for Palo Verde.8
Q. Please describe the results of the Depreciation Study for Nuclear Production 9
plant. 10
A. The results of the analysis conducted in the Depreciation Study, based on the 11
service life and the revised net salvage rates, resulted in a decrease to SCE’s 12
depreciation rates for Nuclear Production plant based solely on the results for the 13
Palo Verde assets. SCE’s present depreciation rates were compared to the 14
Depreciation Study recommendations in Appendix B. The rates proposed for 15
Nuclear Production assets would be a decrease of approximately 62.1 percent 16
from SCE’s present depreciation rates. This is driven primarily by the 20 year life 17
extension for Palo Verde.18
Q. Please describe the results of the Depreciation Study for Hydro Production 19
plant.20
A. The results of the analysis conducted in the Depreciation Study, based on the 21
service life and the revised net salvage rates, resulted in an increase to SCE’s 22
depreciation rates for Hydro Production plant. SCE’s present depreciation rates 23
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 22
were compared to the Depreciation Study recommendations in Appendix B. The 1
rates proposed for Hydro Production assets would be an increase of 2
approximately 24.4 percent from SCE’s present depreciation rates. This is driven 3
primarily by slight changes in interim retirement rates and new investment added 4
since the last GRC.5
Q. Please describe the results of the Depreciation Study for Other Production 6
plant. 7
A. The results of the analysis conducted in the Depreciation Study, based on the 8
service life and the revised net salvage rates, resulted in a decrease to SCE’s 9
depreciation rates for Other Production plant. SCE’s present depreciation rates 10
were compared to the Depreciation Study recommendations in Appendix B11
proposed for Other Production assets would be a decrease of approximately 2.612
percent from SCE’s present depreciation rates. This is driven primarily by the 13
change in depreciation rate attributable to the retirement of Mountain View Units 14
1 and 2, additional investment added since the last GRC, and updates in the 15
decommissioning amounts.16
17
D. Transmission, Distribution, and General Property18
1. Life of Transmission, Distribution, and General Assets19
Q. What is the significance of an asset’s useful life in your Depreciation Study?20
A. An asset’s useful life is used to determine the remaining life over which the 21
remaining cost (original cost plus or minus net salvage, minus accumulated 22
depreciation) can be allocated to normalize the asset’s cost and spread it ratably 23
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 23
over future periods and provide intergenerational equity between generations of 1
customers.2
Q. How did you determine the average service lives for each account?3
A. The establishment of appropriate average service lives for each account within a 4
functional group was determined by using the Simulated Plant Record (“SPR”) 5
method. Graphs and tables supporting the SPR analysis and the chosen Iowa 6
Curves (which represent the percentage of property remaining in service at 7
various age intervals) used to determine the average service lives for analyzed 8
accounts are found in the SCE Depreciation Study Report and the workpapers..9
As detailed in the study, I relied on SCE subject matter experts and my experience 10
from nearly thirty years of conducting depreciation studies to incorporate any 11
differences in the expected future life characteristics of the assets into the 12
selection of lives. The objective of life selection is to estimate the future life 13
characteristics of assets, not simply measure the historical life characteristics. 14
More information can be found in the life analysis section of the SCE15
Depreciation Study. 16
Q. Does your Depreciation Study reflect any changes in the useful lives of the 17
Transmission, Distribution, and General function assets from the lives 18
embedded in the current depreciation rates?19
A. Yes. As shown in Appendix C, seven accounts have increases in life. The 20
greatest change is an increase of six years in FERC Account 356 – Overhead 21
Conductors and Devices. One account shows a decrease in life of five years for 22
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 24
FERC Account 355 – Transmission Poles and Fixtures. The lives for the other 1
accounts remained unchanged from the approved lives from the 2012 GRC.2
2. Net Salvage Rates Transmission, Distribution, and General3
Q. How did you determine the net salvage rates that you used in your study for 4
Transmission, Distribution, and General property?5
A. I examined the experience realized by SCE by observing the average net salvage6
rates for various bands (or combinations) of years. Using averages (such as the 5-7
year average and 10-year average band) allows the smoothing of timing 8
differences between when retirements, removal cost and salvage are booked and 9
smoothes the natural variations between years. By looking at successive average 10
bands, or “rolling bands,” an analyst can see trends in the data that would signal 11
the future net salvage in the account. This examination, in combination with the 12
feedback of SCE personnel related to any changes in operations or maintenance 13
that would affect the future net salvage of SCE, allowed for the selection of the 14
best estimate of future net salvage for each account. 15
Q. Is this a reasonable method for determining net salvage rates?16
A. Yes. This methodology is commonly employed throughout the industry and is the 17
method recommended in authoritative texts. 18
Q. Does your Depreciation Study reflect any change in the net salvage values of 19
the Transmission and Distribution property from the existing net salvage 20
rates embedded in SCE’s current depreciation rates?21
A. Yes. The net salvage values for both Transmission and Distribution property 22
continue to experience increasing cost of removal. The recommended net salvage 23
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 25
values used in the calculation of the Transmission and Distribution depreciation 1
rates, along with the current net salvage values for comparison, are listed in 2
Appendix C. Additionally, the Depreciation Study Report contains a detailed net 3
salvage analysis for Transmission and Distribution property, by account.4
3. Depreciation Rates for Transmission, Distribution, and General Property 5
Q. Please describe the results of the Depreciation Study for Transmission plant.6
A. The results of the analysis conducted in the Depreciation Study, based on the 7
service life of transmission plant and the revised net salvage rates, resulted in an 8
increase to SCE’s depreciation rates for transmission plant. SCE’s present 9
depreciation rates as authorized by the Commission were compared to the 10
Depreciation Study recommendations in Appendix B. The rates proposed for 11
Transmission assets would be an increase of approximately a 0.25 percentage 12
point difference in depreciation rates as compared to SCE’s present depreciation 13
rates.14
Q. Please describe the results of the Depreciation Study for Distribution plant.15
A. The results of the analysis conducted in the Depreciation Study, based on the 16
service life of distribution plant and the revised net salvage rates, resulted in an17
increase to SCE’s depreciation rates for distribution plant. SCE’s present 18
depreciation rates as authorized by the Commission were compared to the 19
proposed Depreciation Study recommendations in Appendix B. The rates 20
proposed for Distribution assets would be an increase of approximately a 0.4421
percentage point difference in depreciation rates as compared to 7 SCE’s present 22
depreciation rates. 23
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 26
Q. Please describe the results of the Depreciation Study for FERC Accounts 1
389-390 (land rights, and structures and improvements).2
A. The results of the analysis conducted in the Depreciation Study, based on the 3
service life of FERC Accounts 389-390 and the revised net salvage rates, resulted 4
in an increase to SCE’s depreciation rate for FERC Account 390 and no change 5
for FERC Account 389. SCE’s present depreciation rates as authorized by the 6
Commission were compared to the proposed Depreciation Study7
recommendations in Appendix B. The rate proposed for FERC Accounts 3908
would be an increase of approximately a 0.94 percentage point difference in 9
depreciation rate as compared to SCE’s present depreciation rate. Account 389 is 10
only for our easement property which has historically received a 60 year average 11
service life with no impact to the study. The proposed changes to account 390 are 12
due to a slight reduction in life and a more negative net salvage rate. 13
Q. Please describe the major changes that resulted in the changes in 14
depreciation rates for electric Transmission and Distribution property.15
A. Changes in service life, gross salvage, gross removal costs, curve selection, and 16
reserve position are all factors that affect the calculation of the depreciation 17
accrual. The proposed changes in the Depreciation Study analysis for 18
Transmission and Distribution assets suggest adjustments that both increase and 19
decrease the total accrual. However, two factors influenced the accrual 20
calculation notably and consistently in opposite direction: the increases in life 21
have the impact of decreasing depreciation rates while the movement toward 22
more negative net salvage has the tendency to increase depreciation expense. 23
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 27
1
E. Vintage Year Depreciation of General Plant Assets2
Q. Please describe the Vintage Group methodology.3
A. For most general plant assets and amortized accounts, SCE is requesting to 4
continue to use a vintage year accounting method approved by the FERC in 5
Accounting Release Number 15 (AR-15), Vintage Year Accounting For General6
Plant Accounts, dated January 1, 1997. AR-15 allowed utilities to use a 7
simplified method of accounting for general plant assets, excluding structures and 8
improvements (referred to as “general plant”). The AR-15 release allowed high 9
volume, low cost assets to be amortized over the associated useful life, eliminated 10
the need to track individual assets, and allows a retirement to be booked at the end 11
of the depreciable life. This method is often referred to as “amortization of 12
general plant.” No changes in the life or net salvage parameters are proposed.13
The proposed lives are shown in the table below. Any changes in the accrual 14
amounts are a result differences between theoretical and book of reserve amounts 15
for each account that are amortized between GRC periods. 16
17
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 28
General and Intangible Forecast Service Lives
Account No. Account Description
2012–2014Authorized(Years)
2015-2017Proposed(Years)
General Plant391.1 Office Furniture 20 20391.2 Personal Computers 5 5391.3 Mainframe Computers 5 5391.4 DDSMS-Power Management
SystemComposite1 Composite.
391.5 Office Equipment 5 5391.6 Duplicating Equipment 5 5391.7 PC Software 5 5393 Stores Equipment 20 20394 Tools & Work Equipment 10 10395 Laboratory Equipment 15 15397 Telecommunication Equipment Composite2 Composite398 Misc Power Plant Equipment 20 20
Intangibles302.020 Hydro Relicensing Various Various303.640 Radio Frequency 40 40302.050 Miscellaneous Intangibles 20 20303.105 Capitalized Software – 5 year 5 5303.707 Capitalized Software – 7 year 7 7303.210 Capitalized Software – 10 year 10 10303.315 Capitalized Software – 15 year 15 15
Easements350 Transmission Easements 60 60360 Distribution Easements 60 60389 General Easements 60 60
1 Account 391.4 is depreciated at the subaccount level. The proposed life for each subaccount is shown in Appendix C-3 and remains unchanged from the 2012 GRC. On a composite basis, based on investment weighting in the account the life of 391.4 was 14.5 years in the 2012 GRCand is 12.3 years in this proceeding.
2 Account 397 is depreciated at the subaccount level. The proposed life for each subaccount is shown in Appendix C-3 and remains unchanged from the 2012 GRC. On a composite basis, based on investment weighting in the account the life of 397 was 16.8 years in the 2012 GRC and is 7.7 years in this proceeding.
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 29
V. CONCLUSION1
Q. Was this exhibit prepared by you or under your direct supervision and 2
control?3
A. Yes. I prepared this exhibit.4
Q. Does this conclude your pre-filed direct testimony?5
A. Yes.6
Watson Direct – Revenue Requirement Page 30
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF TEXAS ))
COUNTY OF COLLIN )
DANE A. WATSON, first being sworn on his oath, states:
I am the witness identified in the preceding testimony. I have read the testimony and the accompanying attachments and am familiar with their contents. Based upon my personal knowledge, the facts stated in the testimony are true. In addition, in my judgment and based upon my professional experience, the opinions and conclusions stated in the testimony are true, valid, and accurate.
________________________________DANE. A. WATSON
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______ day of ______________, 2012by DANE A. WATSON.
__________________________________Notary Public, State of ________________ My Commission Expires: ______________
APPENDIX A
Depreciation Rate Calculations
App
endi
x A
-11
of 2
Sout
hern
Cal
iforn
ia E
diso
nA
nnua
l Acc
rual
Rat
e D
eter
min
atio
nSt
raig
ht L
ine
Rem
aini
ng L
ife M
etho
dFo
r Est
imat
ed Y
ear 2
015
DE
PR
EC
IATI
ON
DE
PR
EC
IAB
LEG
RO
SS
PLA
NT
RE
SE
RV
EB
ALA
NC
ER
EM
.A
NN
UA
L%
GR
OS
SJa
nuar
y 1,
201
3%
AM
OU
NT
Janu
ary
1, 2
013
Janu
ary
1, 2
013
LIFE
AC
CR
UA
LP
LAN
T *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
NU
CLE
AR
PR
OD
UC
TIO
N --
PA
LO V
ERD
E 32
0.2
Eas
emen
ts-
0%-
- -
33.5
- 32
1S
truct
ures
& Im
prov
emen
ts54
3,69
5,21
8
0%-
403,
903,
139
139,
792,
079.
2
33.5
4,16
7,63
3
32
2R
eact
or P
lant
Equ
ipm
ent
706,
926,
523
0%
- 58
5,96
2,56
2
12
0,96
3,96
0.6
33
.53,
606,
308
323
Turb
ogen
erat
or U
nits
254,
867,
598
0%
- 21
3,33
7,77
0
41
,529
,828
.3
33.5
1,23
8,13
2
32
4A
cces
sory
Ele
ctric
Equ
ipm
ent
181,
783,
854
0%
- 16
6,37
4,08
0
15
,409
,774
.9
33.5
459,
413
32
5M
isc.
Pow
er P
lant
Equ
ipm
ent
97,9
57,0
25
0%-
92,0
89,0
56
5,86
7,96
9.0
33
.517
4,94
2
Dec
omm
issi
onin
g-
0%-
2,11
3,29
6
(2,1
13,2
96.5
)
33.5
(63,
004)
To
tal P
VN
GS
Pro
duct
ion
1,78
5,23
0,21
9
- 1,
463,
779,
903
32
1,45
0,31
5.5
33
.59,
583,
424
0.54
%
182
Des
ign
Bas
is D
ocum
enta
tion
7,77
2,58
8
0%-
7,07
6,07
0
696,
518.
5
33.5
20,7
65
182
Def
erre
d D
ebits
18,7
74,7
69
0%-
16,9
40,5
02
1,83
4,26
6.9
33
.554
,685
To
tal P
VN
GS
DB
D &
Deb
its26
,547
,357
-
24,0
16,5
72
2,53
0,78
5.3
33
.575
,451
To
tal P
VN
GS
Pla
nt1,
811,
777,
576
-
1,48
7,79
6,47
5
323,
981,
100.
8
9,65
8,87
5
0.
53%
HYD
RO
ELE
CTR
IC P
RO
DU
CTI
ON
330.
2H
yEas
emen
ts3,
310,
851
0%
- 69
6,53
3
2,61
4,31
7.9
36
.089
,019
2.
69%
331
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts15
7,61
9,11
3
-7%
(11,
566,
481)
54,2
18,9
81
114,
966,
613.
4
39.6
3,52
8,35
3
2.
24%
332
Res
ervo
irs, D
ams
and
Wat
erw
ays
513,
022,
666
-4
%(1
9,21
6,82
3)
22
9,11
5,03
5
30
3,12
4,45
4.0
34
.812
,115
,692
2.
36%
333
Wat
er W
heel
s, T
urbi
nes
& G
ener
ator
s14
9,32
3,72
5
-6%
(8,3
51,8
27)
58
,487
,821
99
,187
,730
.7
36.4
3,54
8,70
6
2.
38%
334
Acc
esso
ry E
lect
ric E
quip
men
t17
8,93
5,50
8
-20%
(36,
331,
402)
31,0
10,5
61
184,
256,
349.
1
30.6
7,54
4,17
4
4.
22%
335
Mis
c. P
ower
Pla
nt E
quip
men
t12
,389
,392
-7
%(8
93,7
88)
6,
406,
037
6,
877,
143.
5
37.6
306,
887
2.
48%
336
Roa
ds, R
ailro
ads
& B
ridge
s11
,946
,663
-2
5%(2
,934
,247
)
4,73
7,80
5
10,1
43,1
05.2
31
.356
4,95
7
4.73
%H
ydro
Tota
l Hyd
ro E
lect
ric P
rodu
ctio
n1,
023,
237,
066
(7
9,29
4,56
9)
38
3,97
6,23
9
71
8,55
5,39
5.9
26
.027
,608
,770
2.
70%
Tota
l Hyd
ro E
lect
ric
1,02
6,54
7,91
7
(79,
294,
569)
384,
672,
773
721,
169,
713.
8
27,6
97,7
89
2.70
%
OTH
ER P
RO
DU
CTI
ON
-- P
EBB
LY B
EAC
H34
0La
nd a
nd L
and
Rig
hts
- 0%
- -
- 18
.7-
341
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts2,
217,
206
0%
- 53
2,30
5
1,68
4,90
1.9
18
.789
,901
34
2Fu
el H
olde
rs, P
rdcr
s &
Acc
ssrs
1,31
4,44
7
0%-
103,
558
1,
210,
889.
3
18.7
64,6
09
343
Prim
e M
over
s20
,412
,167
0%
- 9,
345,
057
11
,067
,109
.2
18.7
590,
505
34
4G
ener
ator
s9,
577,
611
0%
- 3,
736,
838
5,
840,
773.
1
18.7
311,
644
34
5A
cces
sory
Ele
ctric
Equ
ipm
ent
7,21
6,51
3
0%-
2,15
7,64
9
5,05
8,86
4.5
18
.726
9,92
4
346
Mis
c. P
ower
Pla
nt E
quip
men
t50
4,14
4
0%-
162,
484
34
1,66
0.2
18
.718
,230
34
xD
ecom
mis
sion
ing
- 0%
(6,6
05,1
01)
16
3,48
1
6,44
1,62
0.2
18
.734
3,70
4
Peb
bly
Bea
Tota
l Oth
er P
rodu
ctio
n41
,242
,089
(6
,605
,101
)
16,2
01,3
71
31,6
45,8
18.3
18
.71,
688,
517
4.09
%
ES
T. F
UTU
RE
NE
T S
ALV
AG
E
App
endi
x A
-12
of 2
Sout
hern
Cal
iforn
ia E
diso
nA
nnua
l Acc
rual
Rat
e D
eter
min
atio
nSt
raig
ht L
ine
Rem
aini
ng L
ife M
etho
dFo
r Est
imat
ed Y
ear 2
015
DE
PR
EC
IATI
ON
DE
PR
EC
IAB
LEG
RO
SS
PLA
NT
RE
SE
RV
EB
ALA
NC
ER
EM
.A
NN
UA
L%
GR
OS
SJa
nuar
y 1,
201
3%
AM
OU
NT
Janu
ary
1, 2
013
Janu
ary
1, 2
013
LIFE
AC
CR
UA
LP
LAN
T *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
ES
T. F
UTU
RE
NE
T S
ALV
AG
E
OTH
ER P
RO
DU
CTI
ON
-- P
EAK
ERS
340
Land
and
Lan
d R
ight
s52
6,94
8
0%-
58,0
03
468,
945.
0
20.6
22,7
28
341
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts11
,414
,202
0%
- 1,
242,
435
10
,171
,767
.0
20.6
492,
995
34
2Fu
el H
olde
rs, P
rdcr
s &
Acc
ssrs
1,94
2,00
3
0%-
422,
192
1,
519,
810.
9
20.6
73,6
61
343
Prim
e M
over
s22
0,74
8,84
4
0%-
44,0
50,5
47
176,
698,
296.
9
20.6
8,56
4,04
3
34
4G
ener
ator
s15
,080
0%
- 1,
223
13
,857
.5
20.6
672
34
5A
cces
sory
Ele
ctric
Equ
ipm
ent
61,3
15,3
40
0%-
12,5
87,4
58
48,7
27,8
82.2
20
.62,
361,
696
346
Mis
c. P
ower
Pla
nt E
quip
men
t3,
023,
969
0%
- 35
7,83
4
2,66
6,13
4.8
20
.612
9,22
0
34x
Pea
kers
Dec
omm
issi
onin
g-
0%(1
2,10
3,02
8)
1,
261,
640
10
,841
,388
.2
20.6
525,
450
To
tal P
eake
rs29
8,45
9,43
8
(12,
103,
028)
59,9
23,3
29
250,
639,
137.
5
20.6
12,1
47,7
36
4.07
%
STEA
M P
RO
DU
CTI
ON
-- M
OU
NTA
INVI
EW34
1S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
45,3
97,3
870%
- 9,
745,
631
35
,651
,755
.7
23.0
1,55
0,12
2
34
2B
oile
r Pla
nt E
quip
men
t7,
403,
713
0%-
1,73
9,96
5
5,66
3,74
8.6
23
.024
6,25
7
343
Prim
e M
over
s43
5,10
0,87
80%
- 10
3,28
0,59
8
33
1,82
0,27
9.7
23
.014
,427
,398
34
4Tu
rbog
ener
ator
Uni
ts76
,883
,025
0%-
18,1
14,5
06
58,7
68,5
19.2
23
.02,
555,
229
345
Acc
esso
ry E
lect
ric E
quip
men
t85
,106
,863
0%-
18,2
98,3
38
66,8
08,5
24.9
23
.02,
904,
805
346
Mis
c. P
ower
Pla
nt E
quip
men
t3,
731,
530
0%-
346,
107
3,
385,
422.
8
23.0
147,
197
34
xM
ount
ainv
iew
Dec
omm
issi
onin
g 3&
40%
(16,
316,
775)
1,85
3,32
7
14,4
63,4
48.0
23
.062
8,86
4
Tota
l Mou
ntai
nvie
w P
rodu
ctio
n65
3,62
3,39
6
(16,
316,
775)
153,
378,
472
516,
561,
698.
8
23.0
22,4
59,8
73
301
Org
aniz
atio
n2,
796,
617
0%
- 65
7,04
2
2,13
9,57
5.2
23
.093
,028
30
3M
isc.
Inta
ngib
les
41,8
53,2
00
0%-
11,0
41,1
10
30,8
12,0
90.9
23
.01,
339,
696
Mou
ntai
nvie
w In
tang
ible
s44
,649
,817
-
11,6
98,1
51
32,9
51,6
66.1
23
.01,
432,
724
3.21
%
OTH
ER P
RO
DU
CTI
ON
-- S
OLA
R P
V34
1S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
11,8
87,9
10
0%-
844,
339
11
,043
,571
.1
18.6
592,
503
34
3P
rime
Mov
ers
319,
984,
876
0%
- 26
,252
,825
29
3,73
2,05
1.1
18
.615
,759
,132
34
5A
cces
sory
Ele
ctric
Equ
ipm
ent
6,99
4,92
1
0%-
551,
917
6,
443,
004.
3
18.6
345,
676
34
xS
olar
PV
Dec
omm
issi
onin
g-
0%(8
1,90
3,63
4)
6,
967,
275
74
,936
,359
.3
18.6
4,02
0,44
0
S
olar
Pro
duct
ion
338,
867,
708
(81,
903,
634)
34,6
16,3
56
386,
154,
985.
8
18
.620
,717
,751
6.11
%
App
endi
x A
-21
of 3
Sout
hern
Cal
iforn
ia E
diso
nA
nnua
l Acc
rual
Rat
e D
eter
min
atio
nSt
raig
ht L
ine
Rem
aini
ng L
ife M
etho
dFo
r Est
imat
ed Y
ear 2
015
DE
PR
EC
IATI
ON
DE
PR
EC
IAB
LEG
RO
SS
PLA
NT
RE
SE
RV
EB
ALA
NC
ER
EM
.A
NN
UA
L%
GR
OS
SJa
nuar
y 1,
201
3%
AM
OU
NT
Janu
ary
1, 2
013
Janu
ary
1, 2
013
LIFE
AC
CR
UA
LP
LAN
T *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
TRA
NSM
ISSI
ON
PLA
NT
350.
2Tr
Eas
emen
ts14
8,01
7,30
0
0%-
12,8
55,2
82
135,
162,
017.
1
60.0
2,46
6,95
5
1.
67%
352
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts37
6,68
0,05
3
-35%
(131
,838
,018
)
90,8
28,8
51
417,
689,
219.
5
43.8
9,53
7,35
1
2.
53%
353
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
3,98
1,95
7,65
5
-15%
(597
,293
,648
)
514,
217,
874
4,06
5,03
3,42
9.4
33
.612
1,11
9,19
5
3.
04%
Tran
smis
sioT
otal
Tra
nsm
issi
on S
ubst
atio
ns4,
358,
637,
708
(7
29,1
31,6
67)
60
5,04
6,72
6
4,
482,
722,
648.
8
130,
656,
546
3.00
%
354
Tow
ers
and
Fixt
ures
772,
203,
666
-1
00%
(772
,203
,666
)
421,
305,
615
1,12
3,10
1,71
7.7
45
.924
,456
,254
3.
17%
355
Pol
es a
nd F
ixtu
res
603,
692,
254
-8
5%(5
13,1
38,4
16)
17
4,80
0,92
9
94
2,02
9,74
0.8
35
.726
,418
,216
4.
38%
356
Ove
rhea
d C
ondu
ctor
s &
Dev
ices
706,
020,
711
-1
00%
(706
,020
,711
)
537,
696,
385
874,
345,
037.
1
33.8
25,8
93,7
76
3.67
%35
7U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
it48
,517
,033
0%
- 15
,274
,840
33
,242
,193
.9
39.6
839,
077
1.
73%
358
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duct
ors
& D
evic
es20
8,16
7,36
7
-15%
(31,
225,
105)
78,2
44,9
52
161,
147,
519.
6
29.2
5,51
2,36
8
2.
65%
359
Roa
ds a
nd T
rails
43,0
38,5
83
0%-
13,9
80,8
65
29,0
57,7
17.6
44
.565
3,68
0
1.52
%Tr
ansm
issi
oTot
al T
rans
mis
sion
s Li
nes
2,38
1,63
9,61
5
(2,0
22,5
87,8
98)
1,24
1,30
3,58
6
3,16
2,92
3,92
6.6
83
,773
,371
3.
52%
Tota
l Tra
nsm
issi
on P
lant
6,88
8,29
4,62
2(2
,751
,719
,565
)
1,
859,
205,
595
7,78
0,80
8,59
2.5
216,
896,
872
3.15
%
DIS
TRIB
UTI
ON
PLA
NT
360.
2D
iEas
emen
ts56
,249
,558
0%
- 6,
219,
477
50
,030
,080
.6
60.0
937,
493
1.
67%
361
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts43
6,83
0,74
9
-25%
(109
,207
,687
)
159,
481,
896
386,
556,
540.
1
29.1
13,2
88,6
09
3.04
%36
2S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t1,
761,
037,
883
-3
0%(5
28,3
11,3
65)
28
1,58
1,64
1
2,
007,
767,
607.
2
34.8
57,7
36,2
69
3.28
%D
istri
butio
nTo
tal D
istri
butio
n S
ubst
atio
ns2,
197,
868,
632
(6
37,5
19,0
52)
44
1,06
3,53
7
2,
394,
324,
147.
4
71,0
24,8
78
3.23
%
364
Pol
es, T
ower
s an
d Fi
xtur
es1,
655,
027,
118
-2
25%
(3,7
23,8
11,0
16)
623,
811,
488
4,75
5,02
6,64
6.2
36
.812
9,29
5,91
2
7.
81%
365
Ove
rhea
d C
ondu
ctor
s &
Dev
ices
1,19
5,65
3,26
2
-125
%(1
,494
,566
,578
)
52
0,10
2,75
5
2,
170,
117,
084.
7
35.2
61,6
35,8
41
5.15
%36
6U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
it1,
389,
563,
200
-4
0%(5
55,8
25,2
80)
42
4,30
7,68
1
1,
521,
080,
797.
9
44.7
34,0
14,7
07
2.45
%36
7U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
ctor
s &
Dev
ices
4,40
2,04
3,70
6
-80%
(3,5
21,6
34,9
65)
2,03
0,29
3,63
4
5,89
3,38
5,03
6.5
34
.317
1,80
5,72
2
3.
90%
368
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s3,
022,
095,
507
-2
0%(6
04,4
19,1
01)
68
4,57
6,06
6
2,
941,
938,
541.
6
24.8
118,
757,
608
3.93
%36
9S
ervi
ces
1,17
2,06
2,08
7
-125
%(1
,465
,077
,609
)
68
3,57
5,16
6
1,
953,
564,
529.
6
29.0
67,4
67,3
57
5.76
%37
0M
eter
s88
8,75
9,13
2
-5%
(44,
437,
957)
73,3
10,3
62
859,
886,
726.
3
18.2
47,1
42,3
07
5.30
%37
3S
treet
Lig
htin
g &
Sig
nal S
yste
ms
753,
720,
538
-4
0%(3
01,4
88,2
15)
26
7,63
3,25
5
78
7,57
5,49
7.9
30
.525
,859
,600
3.
43%
Dis
tribu
tion
Tota
l Dis
tribu
tion
Line
s14
,478
,924
,549
(1
1,71
1,26
0,72
0)
5,
307,
610,
408
20
,882
,574
,860
.9
65
5,97
9,05
4
4.
53%
Tota
l Dis
tribu
tion
Pla
nt16
,733
,042
,739
(1
2,34
8,77
9,77
2)
5,
754,
893,
422
23
,326
,929
,088
.9
72
7,94
1,42
4
4.
35%
370
(LM
)Le
gacy
Met
ers
71,9
77,2
68
0%-
(173
,489
,817
)
24
5,46
7,08
5.2
6.
040
,911
,181
56
.84%
ES
T. F
UTU
RE
NE
T S
ALV
AG
E
App
endi
x A
-22
of 3
Sout
hern
Cal
iforn
ia E
diso
nA
nnua
l Acc
rual
Rat
e D
eter
min
atio
nSt
raig
ht L
ine
Rem
aini
ng L
ife M
etho
dFo
r Est
imat
ed Y
ear 2
015
DE
PR
EC
IATI
ON
DE
PR
EC
IAB
LEG
RO
SS
PLA
NT
RE
SE
RV
EB
ALA
NC
ER
EM
.A
NN
UA
L%
GR
OS
SJa
nuar
y 1,
201
3%
AM
OU
NT
Janu
ary
1, 2
013
Janu
ary
1, 2
013
LIFE
AC
CR
UA
LP
LAN
T *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
ES
T. F
UTU
RE
NE
T S
ALV
AG
E
GEN
ERA
L PL
AN
T38
9.2
GeE
asem
ents
3,26
9,36
7
0%-
378,
977
2,
890,
389.
4
60.0
54,4
89
1.67
%
390
GeS
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
843,
141,
417
-1
0%(8
4,31
4,14
2)
28
5,17
3,08
3
64
2,28
2,47
5.2
27
.823
,097
,241
2.
74%
391.
xFu
rnitu
re &
Equ
ipm
ent
181,
866,
315
0%
- 70
,387
,823
11
1,47
8,49
2.3
13
8,40
9,51
1
4.
62%
391.
xC
ompu
ters
497,
348,
874
0%
- 18
3,12
3,48
2
31
4,22
5,39
2.2
3
104,
415,
662
20.9
9%39
1.4
Sec
urity
Mon
itorin
g (D
DS
MS
)24
,282
,044
0%
- 6,
604,
333
17
,677
,710
.1
63,
132,
925
12.9
0%39
1.x
Sto
res/
Lab/
Mis
cella
neou
s92
,683
,712
0%
- 40
,156
,646
52
,527
,065
.8
96,
064,
480
6.54
%39
7.x
Tele
com
mun
icat
ions
579,
143,
812
0%
- 16
3,89
1,26
2
41
5,25
2,54
9.7
7
56,5
63,8
06
9.77
%39
xG
ener
al O
ther
86,2
86,9
67
25%
21,5
71,7
42
20
,822
,987
43
,892
,238
.5
79,
854,
144
11.4
2%To
tal G
ener
al P
lant
2,30
8,02
2,50
7
(62,
742,
400)
770,
538,
593
1,60
0,22
6,31
3.2
21
1,59
2,25
8
9.
17%
GR
AN
D T
OTA
L35
,094
,688
,866
(1
5,34
7,92
1,01
2)
15
,221
,026
,681
35,2
21,5
83,1
97.4
1,39
0,84
6,13
0
3.96
%
INTA
NG
IBLE
SH
yHyd
ro R
elic
ensi
ng12
4,93
0,43
6
0%-
29,7
71,9
26
95,1
58,5
10.5
34
.63,
143,
089
2.52
%R
aRad
io F
requ
ency
18,7
23,3
40
0%-
8,28
4,52
3
10,4
38,8
17.1
22
.346
8,08
4
2.50
%M
iOth
er In
tang
ible
s51
0,83
2
0%-
102,
167
40
8,66
5.1
16
.025
,542
5.
00%
CSC
ap S
oft 5
yr44
9,74
8,55
3
0%-
145,
096,
196
304,
652,
356.
9
3.4
89,9
49,7
11
20.0
0%C
ap S
oft 7
yr86
1,86
0,60
5
0%-
380,
239,
122
481,
621,
482.
2
7.0
123,
122,
944
14.2
9%C
SCap
Sof
t 10y
r71
,434
,285
0%
- 41
,042
,134
30
,392
,151
.3
4.3
7,14
3,42
9
10
.00%
CSC
ap S
oft 1
5yr
124,
570,
889
0%
- 11
0,19
1,19
3
14
,379
,696
.0
1.7
8,30
4,72
6
6.
67%
Cap
Sof
tCap
Sof
t (5
yr)
Acc
. Dep
. Adj
ustm
ent
(5,2
10,9
88)
5,
210,
988.
2
2.0
2,62
8,32
5
C
ap S
oftC
ap S
oft (
7 yr
)A
cc. D
ep. A
djus
tmen
t(2
0,90
9,53
6)
20
,909
,535
.6
3.8
5,56
2,57
7
C
ap S
oftC
ap S
oft (
10 y
r)A
cc. D
ep. A
djus
tmen
t(8
,612
,753
)
8,61
2,75
2.8
4.
91,
749,
749
Cap
Sof
tCap
Sof
t (15
yr)
Acc
. Dep
. Adj
ustm
ent
(764
,807
)
764,
807.
3
5.3
143,
923
C
ap S
oft
1,50
7,61
4,33
1
- 67
6,56
8,64
5
23
2,07
2,44
9.0
23
8,60
5,38
2
CA
TALI
NA
CO
MM
ON
GE
NE
RA
L39
0S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
602,
224
-1
0%(6
0,22
2)
233,
236
42
9,21
0.2
26
.016
,497
2.
74%
391
Offi
ce F
urni
ture
and
Equ
ipm
ent
26,4
43
0%-
26,4
43
- 0.
0-
4.62
%39
3S
tore
s E
quip
men
t6,
668
0%
- 6,
668
-
0.0
- 5.
00%
397
Com
mun
icat
ion
Equ
ipm
ent
6,63
8
0%-
6,63
8
- 0.
0-
9.77
%C
a
Tot
al G
ener
al64
1,97
3
(60,
222)
27
2,98
5
429,
210.
2
16,4
97
2.57
%
GE
NE
RA
L O
THE
R39
4C
aToo
ls, S
hop
& G
arag
e E
quip
men
t29
,540
0%
- 29
,540
-
0.0
- 0.
00%
GR
AN
D T
OTA
L C
OM
MO
N67
1,51
3
(60,
222)
30
2,52
6
429,
210.
2
16,4
97
2.46
%
App
endi
x A
-23
of 3
Sout
hern
Cal
iforn
ia E
diso
nA
nnua
l Acc
rual
Rat
e D
eter
min
atio
nSt
raig
ht L
ine
Rem
aini
ng L
ife M
etho
dFo
r Est
imat
ed Y
ear 2
015
DE
PR
EC
IATI
ON
DE
PR
EC
IAB
LEG
RO
SS
PLA
NT
RE
SE
RV
EB
ALA
NC
ER
EM
.A
NN
UA
L%
GR
OS
SJa
nuar
y 1,
201
3%
AM
OU
NT
Janu
ary
1, 2
013
Janu
ary
1, 2
013
LIFE
AC
CR
UA
LP
LAN
T *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
ES
T. F
UTU
RE
NE
T S
ALV
AG
E
CO
MPO
SITE
DEP
REC
IATI
ON
RA
TES
391.
1O
ffice
Fur
nitu
re17
9,39
5,31
3
0%-
63,5
80,4
63
115,
814,
849.
9
8,96
9,76
6
5.
00%
391.
5O
ffice
Equ
ipm
ent
1,46
9,37
3
0%-
787,
110
68
2,26
2.2
29
3,87
5
20.0
0%39
1.6
Dup
licat
ing
Equ
ipm
ent
1,00
1,62
9
0%-
157,
593
84
4,03
6.5
20
0,32
6
20.0
0%A
cc. D
ep. A
djus
tmen
t5,
862,
656
(5
,862
,656
.4)
5.
6(1
,054
,455
)
Furn
iture
& E
quip
men
t18
1,86
6,31
5
0%-
70,3
87,8
23
111,
478,
492.
3
13.3
8,40
9,51
1
4.
62%
391.
2P
erso
nal C
ompu
ters
69,6
59,2
24
0%-
35,8
39,2
94
33,8
19,9
29.9
13
,931
,845
20
.00%
391.
3M
ainf
ram
e C
ompu
ters
427,
689,
651
0%
- 16
9,51
0,63
3
25
8,17
9,01
7.9
85
,537
,930
20
.00%
391.
7P
C S
oftw
are
- 0%
- -
- -
20.0
0%A
cc. D
ep. A
djus
tmen
t(2
2,22
6,44
4)
22
,226
,444
.4
4.5
4,94
5,88
7
C
ompu
ters
497,
348,
874
0%
- 18
3,12
3,48
2
31
4,22
5,39
2.2
3.
010
4,41
5,66
2
20
.99%
391.
4D
DS
MS
- C
PU
& P
roce
ssin
g7,
615,
923
0%
- 1,
924,
924
5,
690,
998.
2
1,08
8,31
5
14
.29%
391.
4D
DS
MS
- C
ontro
llers
, Rec
eive
rs, C
omm
.8,
660,
592
0%
- 3,
340,
524
5,
320,
068.
5
866,
059
10
.00%
391.
4D
DS
MS
- Te
lem
eter
ing
& S
yste
m76
0,43
1
0%-
457,
825
30
2,60
6.4
50
,721
6.
67%
391.
4D
DS
MS
- M
isce
llane
ous
6,71
1,28
3
0%-
3,94
0,48
8
2,77
0,79
5.0
33
5,56
4
5.00
%39
1.4
DD
SM
S -
Map
Boa
rd53
3,81
4
0%-
255,
278
27
8,53
6.3
21
,353
4.
00%
Acc
. Dep
. Adj
ustm
ent
(3,3
14,7
06)
3,
314,
705.
7
4.3
770,
913
Se
curit
y M
onito
ring
(DD
SMS)
24,2
82,0
44
0%-
6,60
4,33
3
17,6
77,7
10.1
5.
63,
132,
925
12.9
0%
393
Sto
res
Equ
ipm
ent
9,44
3,52
8
0%-
5,30
8,46
8
4,13
5,06
0.3
47
2,17
6
5.00
%39
5La
bora
tory
Equ
ipm
ent
67,3
96,6
51
0%-
28,7
50,6
09
38,6
46,0
42.3
4,
495,
357
6.67
%39
8M
isc
Pow
er P
lant
Equ
ipm
ent
15,8
43,5
32
0%-
7,26
6,26
4
8,57
7,26
8.5
79
2,17
7
5.00
%A
cc. D
ep. A
djus
tmen
t(1
,168
,695
)
1,16
8,69
4.8
3.
830
4,77
0
Stor
es/L
ab/M
isce
llane
ous
92,6
83,7
12
0%-
40,1
56,6
46
52,5
27,0
65.8
8.
76,
064,
480
6.54
%
397.
xD
ata
Net
wor
k S
yste
ms
118,
056,
250
0%
- 41
,239
,922
76
,816
,327
.5
23,6
11,2
50
20.0
0%39
7.x
Tele
com
Sys
tem
Equ
ipm
ent
52,4
16,8
42
0%-
5,93
7,67
6
46,4
79,1
66.1
7,
490,
367
14.2
9%39
7.x
Net
com
m R
adio
Ass
embl
y16
5,01
8,39
9
0%-
61,8
14,4
60
103,
203,
939.
6
16,5
01,8
40
10.0
0%39
7.x
Mic
row
ave
Equ
ip. &
Ant
enna
Ass
embl
y24
,969
,669
0%
- 8,
948,
056
16
,021
,613
.1
1,66
5,47
7
6.
67%
397.
xTe
leco
m P
ower
Sys
tem
s8,
967,
555
0%
- 3,
809,
244
5,
158,
310.
5
448,
378
5.
00%
397.
xFi
ber O
ptic
Com
mun
icat
ion
Cab
les
106,
932,
731
0%
- 30
,822
,008
76
,110
,723
.1
16.5
4,61
2,77
1
6.
06%
397.
xTe
leco
m In
frast
ruct
ure
102,
782,
366
0%
- 1,
772,
673
10
1,00
9,69
2.7
26
.73,
783,
135
3.75
%A
cc. D
ep. A
djus
tmen
t9,
547,
223
(9
,547
,223
.0)
6.
2(1
,549
,411
)
Tele
com
mun
icat
ions
579,
143,
812
0%
- 16
3,89
1,26
2
41
5,25
2,54
9.7
7.
356
,563
,806
9.
77%
392
Tran
spor
tatio
n E
quip
.11
,276
,459
0%
- 3,
268,
449
8,
008,
009.
7
1,61
1,40
6
14
.29%
394.
4G
arag
e &
Sho
p --
Equ
ip.
5,62
7,79
0
0%-
2,28
9,78
1
3,33
8,00
8.2
56
2,77
9
10.0
0%39
4.5
Tool
s &
Wor
k E
quip
. -- S
hop
68,7
04,2
21
0%-
19,9
23,1
05
48,7
81,1
16.2
6,
870,
422
10.0
0%39
6P
ower
Ope
r Equ
ip67
8,49
8
25%
169,
624
99
,383
40
9,49
0.8
45
,256
6.
67%
Acc
. Dep
. Adj
ustm
ent
(4,7
57,7
31)
4,
757,
731.
0
6.2
764,
281
G
ener
al O
ther
86,2
86,9
67
0%16
9,62
4
20,8
22,9
87
65,2
94,3
55.9
6.
69,
854,
144
11.4
2%
APPENDIX B
Depreciation Expense Comparison
Appe
ndix
BPa
ge 1
of 4
PRES
ENT
PRES
ENT
PRO
POSE
DPR
OPO
SED
DIFF
EREN
CEAN
NU
ALAN
NU
ALAN
NU
ALAN
NU
ALAN
NU
ALGR
OSS
PLA
NT
ACCR
UAL
ACCR
UAL
ACCR
UAL
ACCR
UAL
ACCR
UAL
Jan.
1, 2
013
RATE
/LIF
E (Y
RS)
AMO
UN
TRA
TE/L
IFE
(YRS
)AM
OU
NT
AMO
UN
T(1
)(2
)(3
)(4
)(5
)(6
)
NU
CLEA
R PR
ODU
CTIO
N --
PAL
O V
ERDE
To
tal P
VNGS
Pro
duct
ion
1,78
6,97
5,44
6(1
)25
,405
,411
(2)
9,61
9,15
3(1
5,78
6,25
8)To
tal P
VNGS
DBD
& D
ebits
26,5
47,3
57(1
)19
3,19
0(2
)75
,451
(117
,739
)To
tal P
VNGS
Pla
nt1,
813,
522,
803
25
,598
,601
9,
694,
603
(15,
903,
998)
HY
DRO
ELE
CTRI
C PR
ODU
CTIO
N33
0.2
Ease
men
ts3,
310,
851
2.84
%94
,028
2.69
%89
,056
(4,9
72)
331
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts15
7,61
9,11
21.
63%
2,56
9,19
22.
24%
3,53
0,66
896
1,47
733
2Re
serv
oirs
, Dam
s and
Wat
erw
ays
513,
022,
666
1.85
%9,
490,
919
2.36
%12
,107
,335
2,61
6,41
633
3W
ater
Whe
els,
Tur
bine
s & G
ener
ator
s14
9,32
3,72
51.
72%
2,56
8,36
82.
38%
3,55
3,90
598
5,53
733
4Ac
cess
ory
Elec
tric
Equ
ipm
ent
178,
935,
508
3.94
%7,
050,
059
4.22
%7,
551,
078
501,
019
335
Misc
. Pow
er P
lant
Equ
ipm
ent
12,3
89,3
921.
61%
199,
469
2.48
%30
7,25
710
7,78
833
6Ro
ads,
Rai
lroad
s & B
ridge
s11
,946
,663
2.48
%29
6,27
74.
73%
565,
077
268,
800
Tota
l Hyd
ro E
lect
ric P
rodu
ctio
n1,
026,
547,
917
2.17
%22
,268
,313
2.70
%27
,704
,376
5,43
6,06
4
OTH
ER P
RODU
CTIO
N --
PEB
BLY
BEAC
HO
ther
Pro
duct
ion
- Peb
bly
Beac
h41
,242
,089
(1)
1,37
1,01
5(2
)1,
371,
015
0Pe
bbly
Bea
ch D
ecom
miss
ioni
ng(1
)0
(2)
317,
502
317,
502
Tota
l Peb
bly
Beac
h41
,242
,089
1,37
1,01
5
1,68
8,51
731
7,50
2
OTH
ER P
RODU
CTIO
N --
PEA
KERS
Oth
er P
rodc
utio
n - P
eake
rs29
8,45
9,43
8(1
)12
,705
,460
(2)
11,9
46,4
42(7
59,0
18)
Peak
ers D
ecom
miss
ioni
ng(1
)0
(2)
226,
834
226,
834
Tota
l Pea
kers
298,
459,
438
12,7
05,4
60(2
)12
,173
,275
(532
,184
)
Sout
hern
Cal
iforn
ia E
diso
nCo
mpa
rison
of D
epre
ciat
ion
Accr
ual R
ates
Stra
ight
Lin
e Re
mai
ning
Life
Met
hod
For E
stim
ated
Yea
r 201
5
Appe
ndix
BPa
ge 2
of 4
PRES
ENT
PRES
ENT
PRO
POSE
DPR
OPO
SED
DIFF
EREN
CEAN
NU
ALAN
NU
ALAN
NU
ALAN
NU
ALAN
NU
ALGR
OSS
PLA
NT
ACCR
UAL
ACCR
UAL
ACCR
UAL
ACCR
UAL
ACCR
UAL
Jan.
1, 2
013
RATE
/LIF
E (Y
RS)
AMO
UN
TRA
TE/L
IFE
(YRS
)AM
OU
NT
AMO
UN
T(1
)(2
)(3
)(4
)(5
)(6
)
Sout
hern
Cal
iforn
ia E
diso
nCo
mpa
rison
of D
epre
ciat
ion
Accr
ual R
ates
Stra
ight
Lin
e Re
mai
ning
Life
Met
hod
For E
stim
ated
Yea
r 201
5
STEA
M P
RODU
CTIO
N --
MO
UN
TAIN
VIEW
Mou
ntai
nvie
w P
rodu
ctio
n65
3,62
3,39
6(1
)26
,980
,352
(2)
22,1
63,1
85(4
,817
,167
)M
ount
ainv
iew
Dec
omm
issio
ning
(1)
(2)
296,
688
296,
688
Mou
ntai
nvie
w In
tang
ible
s44
,649
,817
(1)
1,43
2,72
4(2
)1,
432,
724
0To
tal M
ount
ainv
iew
698,
273,
213
28,4
13,0
7623
,892
,596
(4,5
20,4
80)
OTH
ER P
RODU
CTIO
N --
SO
LAR
PVSo
lar P
rodu
ctio
n33
8,86
7,70
8(1
)19
,268
,965
(2)
17,7
81,4
75(1
,487
,490
)So
lar D
ecom
issio
ning
(1)
(2)
2,93
6,27
62,
936,
276
Tota
l Sol
ar P
V33
8,86
7,70
819
,268
,965
20,7
17,7
511,
448,
786
Tota
l Oth
er P
rodu
ctio
n1,
376,
842,
447
4.49
%
61,7
58,5
164.
25%
58,4
72,1
40(3
,286
,376
)
TRAN
SMIS
SIO
N P
LAN
T35
0.2
Ease
men
ts14
8,01
7,30
01.
67%
2,47
1,88
91.
67%
2,47
1,88
90
352
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts37
6,68
0,05
32.
38%
8,96
4,98
52.
53%
9,53
0,00
556
5,02
035
3St
atio
n Eq
uipm
ent
3,98
1,95
7,65
52.
89%
115,
078,
576
3.04
%12
1,05
1,51
35,
972,
936
354
Tow
ers a
nd F
ixtu
res
772,
203,
666
2.54
%19
,613
,973
3.17
%24
,478
,856
4,86
4,88
335
5Po
les a
nd F
ixtu
res
603,
692,
254
3.43
%20
,706
,644
4.38
%26
,441
,721
5,73
5,07
635
6O
verh
ead
Cond
ucto
rs &
Dev
ices
706,
020,
711
3.57
%25
,204
,939
3.67
%25
,910
,960
706,
021
357
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duit
48,5
17,0
331.
70%
824,
790
1.73
%83
9,34
514
,555
358
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duct
ors &
Dev
ices
208,
167,
367
2.81
%5,
849,
503
2.65
%5,
516,
435
(333
,068
)35
9Ro
ads a
nd T
rails
43,0
38,5
831.
69%
727,
352
1.52
%65
4,18
6(7
3,16
6)To
tal T
rans
mis
sion
Pla
nt6,
888,
294,
622
2.90
%19
9,44
2,65
23.
15%
216,
894,
910
17,4
52,2
59
Appe
ndix
BPa
ge 3
of 4
PRES
ENT
PRES
ENT
PRO
POSE
DPR
OPO
SED
DIFF
EREN
CEAN
NU
ALAN
NU
ALAN
NU
ALAN
NU
ALAN
NU
ALGR
OSS
PLA
NT
ACCR
UAL
ACCR
UAL
ACCR
UAL
ACCR
UAL
ACCR
UAL
Jan.
1, 2
013
RATE
/LIF
E (Y
RS)
AMO
UN
TRA
TE/L
IFE
(YRS
)AM
OU
NT
AMO
UN
T(1
)(2
)(3
)(4
)(5
)(6
)
Sout
hern
Cal
iforn
ia E
diso
nCo
mpa
rison
of D
epre
ciat
ion
Accr
ual R
ates
Stra
ight
Lin
e Re
mai
ning
Life
Met
hod
For E
stim
ated
Yea
r 201
5
DIST
RIBU
TIO
N P
LAN
T36
0.2
Ease
men
ts56
,249
,558
1.67
%93
9,36
81.
67%
939,
368
0
361
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts43
6,83
0,74
93.
20%
13,9
78,5
843.
04%
13,2
79,6
55(6
98,9
29)
362
Stat
ion
Equi
pmen
t1,
761,
037,
883
3.13
%55
,120
,486
3.28
%57
,762
,043
2,64
1,55
736
4Po
les,
Tow
ers a
nd F
ixtu
res
1,65
5,02
7,11
87.
06%
116,
844,
915
7.81
%12
9,25
7,61
812
,412
,703
365
Ove
rhea
d Co
nduc
tors
& D
evic
es1,
195,
653,
262
4.61
%55
,119
,615
5.15
%61
,576
,143
6,45
6,52
836
6U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
it1,
389,
563,
200
2.16
%30
,014
,565
2.45
%34
,044
,298
4,02
9,73
336
7U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
ctor
s & D
evic
es4,
402,
043,
706
3.35
%14
7,46
8,46
43.
90%
171,
679,
705
24,2
11,2
4036
8Li
ne T
rans
form
ers
3,02
2,09
5,50
73.
68%
111,
213,
115
3.93
%11
8,76
8,35
37,
555,
239
369
Serv
ices
1,17
2,06
2,08
74.
76%
55,7
90,1
555.
76%
67,5
10,7
7611
,720
,621
370
Met
ers
888,
759,
132
5.35
%47
,548
,614
5.30
%47
,104
,234
(444
,380
)37
3St
reet
Lig
htin
g &
Sig
nal S
yste
ms
753,
720,
538
2.73
%20
,576
,571
3.43
%25
,852
,614
5,27
6,04
4To
tal D
istr
ibut
ion
Plan
t16
,733
,042
,739
3.91
%65
4,61
4,45
14.
35%
727,
774,
807
73,1
60,3
56
GEN
ERAL
PLA
NT
389.
2Ea
sem
ents
3,26
9,36
71.
67%
54,5
981.
67%
54,5
980
390
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts84
3,14
1,41
71.
80%
15,1
76,5
452.
74%
23,0
97,2
417,
920,
696
391.
xFu
rnitu
re &
Equ
ipm
ent
181,
866,
315
3.34
%6,
074,
335
4.62
%8,
409,
511
2,33
5,17
639
1.x
Com
pute
rs49
7,34
8,87
419
.35%
96,2
37,0
0720
.99%
104,
415,
662
8,17
8,65
539
1.4
Secu
rity
Mon
itorin
g (D
DSM
S)24
,282
,044
16.3
1%3,
960,
401
12.9
0%3,
132,
925
(827
,477
)39
1.x
Stor
es/L
ab/M
iscel
lane
ous
92,6
83,7
128.
13%
7,53
5,18
66.
54%
6,06
4,48
0(1
,470
,706
)39
7.x
Tele
com
mun
icat
ions
579,
143,
812
7.57
%43
,841
,187
9.77
%56
,563
,806
12,7
22,6
1939
xGe
nera
l Oth
er86
,286
,967
15.2
2%13
,132
,876
11.4
2%9,
854,
144
(3,2
78,7
32)
Tota
l Gen
eral
Pla
nt2,
308,
022,
507
15.2
2%18
6,01
2,13
68.
84%
211,
537,
769
25,5
80,2
31
Appe
ndix
BPa
ge 4
of 4
PRES
ENT
PRES
ENT
PRO
POSE
DPR
OPO
SED
DIFF
EREN
CEAN
NU
ALAN
NU
ALAN
NU
ALAN
NU
ALAN
NU
ALGR
OSS
PLA
NT
ACCR
UAL
ACCR
UAL
ACCR
UAL
ACCR
UAL
ACCR
UAL
Jan.
1, 2
013
RATE
/LIF
E (Y
RS)
AMO
UN
TRA
TE/L
IFE
(YRS
)AM
OU
NT
AMO
UN
T(1
)(2
)(3
)(4
)(5
)(6
)
Sout
hern
Cal
iforn
ia E
diso
nCo
mpa
rison
of D
epre
ciat
ion
Accr
ual R
ates
Stra
ight
Lin
e Re
mai
ning
Life
Met
hod
For E
stim
ated
Yea
r 201
5
INTA
NG
IBLE
SHy
dro
Relic
ensin
g12
4,93
0,43
62.
64%
3,29
5,26
32.
52%
3,14
3,08
9(1
52,1
73)
Radi
o Fr
eque
ncy
18,7
23,3
402.
50%
468,
084
2.50
%46
8,08
40
Oth
er In
tang
ible
s51
0,83
25.
00%
25,5
425.
00%
25,5
420
Tota
l Int
angi
ble
Excl
Sof
twar
e14
4,16
4,60
80.
00%
3,78
8,88
83,
636,
715
(152
,173
)
Cap
Soft
5yr
449,
748,
553
21.4
1%96
,285
,380
20.5
8%92
,578
,035
(3,7
07,3
45)
Cap
Soft
7yr
861,
860,
605
14.7
1%12
6,74
6,01
314
.93%
128,
685,
521
1,93
9,50
8Ca
p So
ft 1
0yr
71,4
34,2
8510
.00%
7,14
3,42
912
.45%
8,89
3,17
71,
749,
749
Cap
Soft
15y
r12
4,57
0,88
96.
67%
8,30
3,31
66.
78%
8,44
8,64
914
5,33
2To
tal S
oftw
are
1,50
7,61
4,33
110
.82%
238,
478,
138
238,
605,
382
127,
244
CATA
LIN
A Pl
ant
641,
973
1.96
%12
,583
2.57
%16
,497
3,91
5
Tota
l Int
angi
bles
and
Sof
twar
e1,
652,
420,
912
242,
279,
609
242,
258,
594
(21,
015)
Tota
l SCE
31,7
98,6
93,9
474.
38%
1,39
1,97
4,27
64.
70%
1,49
4,33
7,19
910
2,41
7,52
1
Not
es:
(1)
Pro
duct
ion
pres
ent a
ccru
al d
eter
min
ed fr
om 2
012
GRC
rem
aini
ng li
fe a
nd d
ecom
miss
ioni
ng a
mou
nt(2
) P
rodu
ctio
n pr
opos
ed a
ccru
al D
eter
min
ed fr
om P
ropo
sed
rem
aini
ng li
fe a
nd d
ecom
miss
ioni
ng a
mou
nt
APPENDIX C
Depreciation Parameter Comparison
Appe
ndix
�C�1
Page
��1�o
f�2
Life
Life
Span
Rem
aini
ngN
et�
Span
Rem
aini
ngN
et�
Life
Life
Life
Salv
age
Deco
mm
issi
onin
gLi
feLi
feLi
feSa
lvag
eDe
com
mis
sion
ing
NU
CLEA
R�PR
ODU
CTIO
N���
�PAL
O�V
ERDE
�32
0.2
Ease
men
tsLi
cens
e16
.10%
Lice
nse
33.5
0%32
1St
ruct
ures
�&�Im
prov
emen
tsLi
cens
e16
.00%
Lice
nse
33.5
0%32
2Re
acto
r�Pla
nt�E
quip
men
tLi
cens
e15
.80%
Lice
nse
33.5
0%32
3Tu
rbog
ener
ator
�Uni
tsLi
cens
e14
.90%
Lice
nse
33.5
0%32
4Ac
cess
ory�
Elec
tric
�Equ
ipm
ent
Lice
nse
16.1
0%Li
cens
e33
.50%
325
Misc
.�Pow
er�P
lant
�Equ
ipm
ent
Lice
nse
15.0
0%Li
cens
e33
.50%
Deco
mm
issio
ning
15.7
0%Li
cens
e33
.50%
182
Desig
n�Ba
sis�D
ocum
enta
tion
Lice
nse
16.1
0%Li
cens
e33
.50%
182
Defe
rred
�Deb
itsLi
cens
e16
.10%
Lice
nse
33.5
0%
HYDR
O�E
LECT
RIC�
PRO
DUCT
ION
330.
2Hy
dro�
��Lan
Ease
men
tsLi
cens
e36
.00%
Lice
nse
36.3
0.00
%33
1St
ruct
ures
�and
�Impr
ovem
ents
Lice
nse
39.6
�7%
332
Rese
rvoi
rs,�D
ams�a
nd�W
ater
way
sLi
cens
e40
.8�5
.80%
Lice
nse
34.8
�4%
333
Wat
er�W
heel
s,�T
urbi
nes�&
�Gen
erat
ors
Lice
nse
36.9
�2.8
0%Li
cens
e36
.4�6
%33
4Ac
cess
ory�
Elec
tric
�Equ
ipm
ent
Lice
nse
37.7
�3.1
0%Li
cens
e30
.6�2
0%33
5M
isc.�P
ower
�Pla
nt�E
quip
men
tLi
cens
e30
.6�2
2.00
%Li
cens
e37
.6�7
%33
6Ro
ads,
�Rai
lroad
s�&�B
ridge
sLi
cens
e38
.1�7
.10%
Lice
nse
31.3
�25%
�De
com
miss
ioni
ng(7
,900
,000
)(6
,876
,000
)�
OTH
ER�P
RODU
CTIO
N���
�PEB
BLY�
BEAC
H34
0La
nd�a
nd�L
and�
Righ
tsLi
fe�S
pan
4521
.70%
Life
�Spa
n45
18.7
0%
341
Stru
ctur
es�a
nd�Im
prov
emen
tsLi
fe�S
pan
4521
.70%
Life
�Spa
n45
18.7
0%34
2Fu
el�H
olde
rs,�P
rdcr
s�&�A
ccss
rsLi
fe�S
pan
4521
.70%
Life
�Spa
n45
18.7
0%34
3Pr
ime�
Mov
ers
Life
�Spa
n45
21.7
0%Li
fe�S
pan
4518
.70%
344
Gene
rato
rsLi
fe�S
pan
4521
.70%
Life
�Spa
n45
18.7
0%34
5Ac
cess
ory�
Elec
tric
�Equ
ipm
ent
Life
�Spa
n45
21.7
0%Li
fe�S
pan
4518
.70%
346
Misc
.�Pow
er�P
lant
�Equ
ipm
ent
Life
�Spa
n45
21.7
0%Li
fe�S
pan
4518
.70%
34x
Deco
mm
issio
ning
Life
�Spa
n(6
54,5
48)
(6,6
05,1
01)
OTH
ER�P
RODU
CTIO
N���
�PEA
KERS
340
Land
�and
�Lan
d�Ri
ghts
Life
�Spa
n25
22.4
0%Li
fe�S
pan
2520
.60%
341
Stru
ctur
es�a
nd�Im
prov
emen
tsLi
fe�S
pan
2522
.40%
Life
�Spa
n25
20.6
0%34
2Fu
el�H
olde
rs,�P
rdcr
s�&�A
ccss
rsLi
fe�S
pan
2522
.40%
Life
�Spa
n25
20.6
0%34
3Pr
ime�
Mov
ers
Life
�Spa
n25
22.4
0%Li
fe�S
pan
2520
.60%
344
Gene
rato
rsLi
fe�S
pan
2522
.40%
Life
�Spa
n25
20.6
0%34
5Ac
cess
ory�
Elec
tric
�Equ
ipm
ent
Life
�Spa
n25
22.4
0%Li
fe�S
pan
2520
.60%
346
Misc
.�Pow
er�P
lant
�Equ
ipm
ent
Life
�Spa
n(7
,422
,862
)Li
fe�S
pan
(12,
103,
028)
2015
GR
C
2015
�GRC
�Pro
pose
d20
12�G
RC�A
ppro
ved
SCE
Pro
pose
d V
ersu
s App
rove
d L
ives
and
Net
Sal
vage
Prod
uctio
n Fa
citli
ties
Appe
ndix
�C�1
Page
��2�o
f�2
2015
GR
C
2015
�GRC
�Pro
pose
d20
12�G
RC�A
ppro
ved
SCE
Pro
pose
d V
ersu
s App
rove
d L
ives
and
Net
Sal
vage
Prod
uctio
n Fa
citli
ties
34x
Peak
ers�D
ecom
miss
ioni
ng
STEA
M�P
RODU
CTIO
N���
�MO
UN
TAIN
VIEW
341
Stru
ctur
es�a
nd�Im
prov
emen
tsLi
fe�S
pan
3026
.00%
Life
�Spa
n30
23.0
0%34
2Bo
iler�P
lant
�Equ
ipm
ent
Life
�Spa
n30
26.0
0%Li
fe�S
pan
3023
.00%
343
Prim
e�M
over
sLi
fe�S
pan
3026
.00%
Life
�Spa
n30
23.0
0%34
4Tu
rbog
ener
ator
�Uni
tsLi
fe�S
pan
3026
.00%
Life
�Spa
n30
23.0
0%34
5Ac
cess
ory�
Elec
tric
�Equ
ipm
ent
Life
�Spa
n30
26.0
0%Li
fe�S
pan
3023
.00%
346
Misc
.�Pow
er�P
lant
�Equ
ipm
ent
Life
�Spa
n30
26.0
0%Li
fe�S
pan
3023
.00%
34x
Mou
ntai
nvie
w�D
ecom
miss
ioni
ng�3
&4
Life
�Spa
n(8
,846
,811
)Li
fe�S
pan
(16,
316,
775)
301
Org
aniza
tion
Life
�Spa
n30
26.0
0%Li
fe�S
pan
3023
.00%
303
Misc
.�Int
angi
bles
Life
�Spa
n30
26.0
0%Li
fe�S
pan
3023
.00%
OTH
ER�P
RODU
CTIO
N���
�SO
LAR�
PV34
1St
ruct
ures
�and
�Impr
ovem
ents
Life
�Spa
n20
17.2
0%Li
fe�S
pan
2018
.60%
343
Prim
e�M
over
sLi
fe�S
pan
2017
.20%
Life
�Spa
n20
18.6
0%34
5Ac
cess
ory�
Elec
tric
�Equ
ipm
ent
Life
�Spa
n20
17.2
0%Li
fe�S
pan
2018
.60%
34x
Sola
r�PV�
Deco
mm
issio
ning
Life
�Spa
n(2
7,17
4,84
2)Li
fe�S
pan
(81,
903,
634)
Appe
ndix
�C�2
�Pa
ge�1
�of�1
FER
CA
cct
Des
crip
tion
Life
Iow
aC
urve
Net
Salv
age
Life
Iow
aC
urve
Net
Salv
age
Life
Iow
aC
urve
Net
Salv
age
Life
Iow
aC
urve
Net
Salv
age
Life
Net
Salv
age
Tran
smiss
ion
350.
2Ea
sem
ents
600%
600%
00%
352
Stru
ctur
es�&
�Impr
ovem
ents
55S3
�40
55S2
�30%
55S2
�30%
55S3
�35%
0�5
%35
3St
atio
n�Eq
uipm
ent
40R1
5%40
R1�1
0%40
R1�5
%41
R1�1
5%1
�10%
354
Tow
ers�&
�Fix
ture
s65
S3�7
0%60
R5�8
5%65
R5�7
0%65
R5�1
00%
0�3
0%35
5Po
les�&
�Fix
ture
s45
R1�7
0%45
R1�8
5%50
R1�7
0%45
R1�8
5%-5
�15%
356
Ove
rhea
d�Co
nduc
tors
�&�D
evic
es50
R4�8
0%50
R4�8
5%50
R4�8
0%56
R4�1
00%
6�2
0%35
7U
nder
grou
nd�C
ondu
it55
R30%
55R3
0%55
R30%
55R3
0%0
0%35
8U
nder
grou
nd�C
ondu
ctor
s�&�D
evic
es35
R3�3
0%40
R2.5
�20%
40R2
.5�2
0%40
R2.5
�15%
05%
359
Road
s�and
�Tra
ils60
SQ0%
60SQ
0%60
SQ0%
60SQ
0%0
0%
Dist
ribut
ion
360.
2Ea
sem
ents
600%
600%
00%
361
Stru
ctur
es�&
�Impr
ovem
ents
40S2
�20%
40S2
.5�2
5%40
S2.5
�25%
42R2
.5�2
5%2
0%36
2St
atio
n�Eq
uipm
ent
45R1
�10%
45R1
.5�2
0%45
R1.5
�20%
45R1
.5�3
0%0
�10%
364
Pole
s,�T
ower
s�&�F
ixtu
res
45R0
.5�1
90%
40R1
�200
%45
R1�1
90%
45R0
.5�2
25%
0�3
5%36
5O
verh
ead�
Cond
ucto
rs�&
�Dev
ices
45R0
.5�1
00%
40R1
�110
%45
R0.5
�110
%45
R0.5
�125
%0
�15%
366
Und
ergr
ound
�Con
duit
55R3
�20%
55R3
�20%
55R3
�20%
59R3
�40%
4�2
0%36
7U
nder
grou
nd�C
ondu
ctor
s�&�D
evic
es30
R2�6
0%30
R2�6
0%40
R1�6
0%42
R1�8
0%2
�20%
368
Line
�Tra
nsfo
rmer
s30
S30%
30R1
.5�1
0%30
R1.5
0%33
R1�2
0%3
�20%
369
Serv
ices
35R2
�75%
40R2
�100
%40
R2�8
5%42
R2�1
25%
2�4
0%37
0M
eter
s���L
egac
y�1
0%�5
%N
/AN
/A37
0M
eter
s���S
mar
t�Con
nect
20R3
�10%
20R3
�5%
20R3
�5%
20R3
�5%
373
Stre
et�L
ight
ing
35L0
.5�1
5%40
L0.5
�30%
40L0
.5�2
0%40
L0.5
�40%
0�2
0%
390
Stru
ctur
es�a
nd�Im
prov
emen
ts40
R2.5
�5%
40R2
.5�5
%40
R2.5
�5%
38R3
�10%
-2�5
%
2009
GR
C20
12 G
RC
2012
GR
C A
dopt
edPr
opos
ed 2
015
GR
C
19�y
r�RL
16�y
r�RL
6�yr
�RL
6�yr
�RL
SCE
Pro
pose
d V
ersu
s App
rove
d L
ives
and
Net
Sal
vage
2015
GR
C
Prev
ious
ly A
utho
rize
dSC
E P
ropo
sed
Tra
nsm
issi
on, D
istr
ibut
ion,
and
Gen
eral
Cha
nge
Appendix�C�3Page�1�of�3
2012�GRC 2012�GRC 2015�GRC 2015�GRCApproved Approved Proposed Proposed
Plant�Acct Sub�Acct Description Life Net�Salvage Life Net�Salvage
391.1 Office�Furniture 20 0% 20 0%391.2 Personal�Computers 5 0% 5 0%391.3 Mainframe�Computers 5 0% 5 0%391.4 DDSMS Power�Management�System 14.5 0% 12.3 0%
391.4 Central�Processing�Unit� 7 0% 7 0%391.401 CPU�Memory�Unit� 7 0% 7 0%391.407 Line�Printer� 7 0% 7 0%391.408 Magnetic�Tape�Drive� 7 0% 7 0%391.409 Bulk�Storage�Unit� 7 0% 7 0%391.413 Display�Controller� 7 0% 7 0%391.415 Full�Graphics�CRT�Workstation� 7 0% 7 0%391.416 PC Based�Workstation 7 0% 7 0%391.417 Teletypewriter 7 0% 7 0%391.432 Interface/Application�Processor� 7 0% 7 0%391.438 Battery�System� 7 0% 7 0%391.442 Cathode�Ray�Tube�Terminal� 7 0% 7 0%391.443 Optical�Projection�Unit� 7 0% 7 0%
391.42 Data�Acq�Concentrator/Controller� 10 0% 10 0%391.422 Communication�Controller� 10 0% 10 0%391.423 Data�Communication�Unit� 10 0% 10 0%391.428 Standard�Time/Freq�Clock�Receiver� 10 0% 10 0%391.429 Wall�Strip�Chart�Recorder 10 0% 10 0%391.435 Dial Up�Remote�Terminal�Unit� 10 0% 10 0%
391.426 Telemetering�Receiver/Transmitter� 15 0% 15 0%391.436 Uninterruptible�Power�System� 15 0% 15 0%
391.405 Input/Output�Unit� 20 0% 20 0%391.406 Control�Console� 20 0% 20 0%391.421 Real�Time�Remote�Terminal�Unit� 20 0% 20 0%
391.43 Broadcast�Control�System� 20 0% 20 0%
391.419 Dynamic�Map�Board� 25 0% 25 0%
391.5 Office�Equipment 5 0% 5 0%391.6 Duplicating�Equipment 5 0% 5 0%391.7 PC�Software 5 0% 5 0%
393 Stores�Equipment 20 0% 20 0%394 Tools�&�Work�Equipment 10 0% 10 0%395 Laboratory�Equipment 15 0% 15 0%
397 Telecommunication�Equipment 16.8 0% 16.8 0%
397.55 Data�Network�System NA NA 5 0%
397.05 AC/Heating/Ventilation�System 7 0% NA NA397.11 Radio�Base�Station�Control�System 7 0% NA NA397.13 Telephone�System 7 0% NA NA
397.135 Circuit�Treatment 7 0% NA NA397.145 Transmission�Equipment 7 0% NA NA397.152 Radio�Transmission�Equipment 7 0% NA NA397.153 Sync�Equipment 7 0% NA NA397.155 Channel�Equipment�Assembly 7 0% NA NA
397.16 Communications�Alarm/Control�System 7 0% NA NA397.163 Misc�Communication�Training�Equipment 7 0% NA NA
397.2 Communication�Equipment� �Radio 7 0% NA NA397.5 Cellular�Phones 7 0% NA NA
397.51 Radio�Base�Station�Control�System�(397.110) 7 0% NA NA397.515 Radio,�Mobil�Unit�(397.540) 7 0% NA NA
397.52 Radio,�Portable�Unit�(397.540) 7 0% NA NA
SCE Proposed Versus Approved Lives and Net Salvage
2015 GRCGeneral Amortized, Intangible, and Easements
Appendix�C�3Page�2�of�3
2012�GRC 2012�GRC 2015�GRC 2015�GRCApproved Approved Proposed Proposed
Plant�Acct Sub�Acct Description Life Net�Salvage Life Net�Salvage
SCE Proposed Versus Approved Lives and Net Salvage
2015 GRCGeneral Amortized, Intangible, and Easements
397.525 Radio,�Pager�Unit�(397.540) 7 0% NA NA397.54 Mobile/Portable�Unit 7 0% NA NA
397.545 Data�Network�Interconnect�System 7 0% NA NA397.55 Dynamic�Network�Multiplexer�(DNM) 7 0% NA NA397.56 Television�System�(TV) 7 0% NA NA
397.562 NetComm�Control�&�Monitoring�System 7 0% NA NA397.862 NetComm�Control/Monitor�System�(397.562) 7 0% NA NA
397.99 Spare�Parts 7 0% NA NA397.559 Videoconferencing�System NA NA 7 0%
397.561 NetComm�Radio�Assembly 10 0% NA NA397.861 NetComm�Radio�Assembly�(397.561) 10 0% NA NA397.098 iDirect�Remote�SatComm�Station�(VSAT) NA NA 10 0%
397.11 Radio�Base�Station�Control�System NA NA 10 0%397.13 Telephone�System NA NA 10 0%
397.135 Circuit�Treatment NA NA 10 0%397.145 Transmission�Equipment NA NA 10 0%397.151 Lightwave�Transmission�Equipment NA NA 10 0%397.153 Sync�Equipment NA NA 10 0%397.154 Microwave�Transmission�Equipment NA NA 10 0%397.155 Channel�Equipment�Assembly NA NA 10 0%
397.16 Communications�Alarm/Control�System NA NA 10 0%397.54 Mobile/Portable�Unit NA NA 10 0%
397.561 NetComm�Radio�Assembly NA NA 10 0%397.562 NetComm�Control�&�Monitoring�System NA NA 10 0%
397.99 Spare�Parts
397.025 Comm�Term.�Prot.�System� 15 0% NA NA397.136 Cable�Protection 15 0% 15 0%
397.14 Antenna�Assembly 15 0% 15 0%397.151 Intercom�System�(IC) 15 0% NA NA
397.24 D.C.�Power�System 15 0% NA NA397.245 Electrical�Power�Generation�System 15 0% NA NA397.255 Public�Address�System�(PA) 15 0% 15 0%
397.3 Communication�Equipment�–�Microwave 15 0% NA NA397.701 Microwave�Antenna�Assembly 15 0% NA NA397.705 Microwave�Terminal�Assembly 15 0% NA NA397.715 Baseband�Equipment�Assembly 15 0% NA NA
397.72 Channel�Equipment�Assembly 15 0% NA NA397.836 Digital�Cross�Connect�System�(DSX) 15 0% NA NA397.837 Dynamic�Network�Multiplexer�(DNM) 15 0% NA NA
397.84 DC�Power�System 15 0% NA NA
397.24 D.C.�Power�System 15 0% 20 0%397.245 Electrical�Power�Generation�System 15 0% 20 0%
397.802 Communication�Cable,�Overhead,�Fiber�Optic 25 0% 25 0%397.806 Communication�Cable,�Underground,�Fiber�Optic 25 0% 25 0%
397 Communication�Equipment�Telephone 40 0% NA NA397.065 Crossarm�Communication�(wood) 40 0% NA NA
397.07 Crossarm�Communication�(steel) 40 0% NA NA397.1 Communication�Equipment�Telephone 40 0% NA NA
397.115 Jack�Field�Assembly�PABX�Trunk�Circuit 40 0% NA NA397.25 Crossarm�Communication�(wood) 40 0% NA NA397.33 Pole,�Wood� �Edison�Solely�Owned 40 0% 40 0%397.43 Switch,�Disconnect 40 0% 40 0%
397.6 Pole,�Wood� �Joint�Foreign�Set 40 0% 40 0%397.79 Conductor,�Open�Wire�Communication 40 0% 40 0%
397.801 Communication�Cable,�Overhead,�Copper�Jacketed 40 0% 40 0%397.805 Communication�Cable,�Underground,�Copper�Jacketed 40 0% 40 0%
Appendix�C�3Page�3�of�3
2012�GRC 2012�GRC 2015�GRC 2015�GRCApproved Approved Proposed Proposed
Plant�Acct Sub�Acct Description Life Net�Salvage Life Net�Salvage
SCE Proposed Versus Approved Lives and Net Salvage
2015 GRCGeneral Amortized, Intangible, and Easements
397.821 Communication�Riser 40 0% 40 0%397.825 Antenna�Support�Structure 40 0% 40 0%397.865 Communication�Conduit�System 40 0% 40 0%
398 Misc�Power�Plant�Equipment 20 0% 20 0%
Intangibles302.02 Hydro�Relicensing Various 0% Various 0%303.64 Radio�Frequency 40 0% 40 0%302.05 Miscellaneous�Intangibles 20 0% 20 0%
303.105 Capitalized�Software�–��5�year 5 0% 5 0%303.707 Capitalized�Software�–��7�year 7 0% 7 0%
303.21 Capitalized�Software�–�10�year 10 0% 10 0%303.315 Capitalized�Software�–�15�year 15 0% 15 0%
0%Easements 0%
350 Transmission�Easements 60 0% 60 0%360 Distribution�Easements 60 0% 60 0%389 General�Easements 60 0% 60 0%
APPENDIX D
Production Retirement Dates
Appe
ndix
�DPa
ge�1
�of�2
SOU
TH
ER
N C
AL
IFO
RN
IA E
DIS
ON
CO
MPA
NY
GE
NE
RA
TIO
N R
EM
AIN
ING
LIF
E D
ET
ER
MIN
AT
ION
Rem
aini
ng L
ife A
s Of
12/3
1/12
Pebb
ly B
each
Rem
aini
ng L
ife S
pan:
DA
TE
OF
FIR
MD
AT
E F
UL
LY
TO
TA
LA
GE
RM
NG
WT
D R
EM
MW
H. W
hitm
anO
PER
AT
ION
DE
PRE
CIA
TE
DW
EIG
HT
ING
LIF
E S
PAN
(YR
S)L
IFE
SPA
NL
IFE
SPA
NW
TD
AG
EU
nit 7
Die
sel
1.00
8019
5820
034.
4%45
54.5
0.0
0.00
02.
389
Uni
t 8 D
iese
l1.
5067
1963
2008
5.5%
4549
.50.
00.
000
2.72
6U
nit1
0 D
iese
l1.
1071
1966
2011
4.3%
4546
.50.
00.
000
1.99
0U
nit1
2 D
iese
l1.
6014
019
7620
2112
.3%
4536
.58.
51.
043
4.48
0U
nit 1
4 D
iese
l1.
4026
119
8620
3120
.0%
4526
.518
.53.
704
5.30
5U
nit 1
5 D
iese
l2.
8034
919
9520
4053
.5%
4517
.527
.514
.723
9.36
99.
4010
0.0%
26.2
58
Mou
ntai
nvie
w R
emai
ning
Life
Spa
n:D
AT
E O
F FI
RM
DA
TE
FU
LL
YT
OT
AL
AG
ER
MN
GW
TD
RE
MU
NIT
LO
CN
DE
SCR
IPT
ION
OPE
RA
TIO
ND
EPR
EC
IAT
ED
WE
IGH
TIN
GL
IFE
SPA
N(Y
RS)
LIF
E S
PAN
LIF
E S
PAN
WT
D A
GE
3M
ount
ainv
iew
12/3
1/05
12/3
1/35
50%
307.
0
23
.011
.500
3.50
04
Mou
ntai
nvie
w12
/31/
0512
/31/
3550
%30
7.0
23.0
11.5
003.
500
100%
7.0
23.0
22.9
997.
001
Peak
er G
ener
atio
n R
emai
ning
Life
Spa
n:D
AT
E O
F FI
RM
DA
TE
FU
LL
YT
OT
AL
AG
ER
MN
GW
TD
RE
MU
NIT
LO
CN
DE
SCR
IPT
ION
OPE
RA
TIO
ND
EPR
EC
IAT
ED
WE
IGH
TIN
GL
IFE
SPA
N(Y
RS)
LIF
E S
PAN
LIF
E S
PAN
WT
D A
GE
13x
xxPe
aker
s08
/01/
0707
/31/
3220
%25
5.4
19.6
3.91
61.
084
23x
xxPe
aker
s08
/01/
0707
/31/
3220
%25
5.4
19.6
3.91
61.
084
33x
xxPe
aker
s08
/01/
0707
/31/
3220
%25
5.4
19.6
3.91
61.
084
43x
xxPe
aker
s08
/01/
0707
/31/
3220
%25
5.4
19.6
3.91
61.
084
53x
xxPe
aker
s11
/01/
1211
/01/
3720
%25
0.2
24.8
4.96
70.
033
100%
4.4
20.6
20.6
334.
367
PVN
GS
Rem
aini
ng L
ife S
pan:
DA
TE
OF
FIR
MD
AT
E F
UL
LY
RM
NG
WT
D R
EM
UN
ITL
OC
ND
ESC
RIP
TIO
NO
PER
AT
ION
DE
PRE
CIA
TE
DW
EIG
HT
ING
LIF
E S
PAN
LIF
E S
PAN
1PV
NG
S U
nit 1
06/0
1/45
33.3
333%
32.4
10.8
053
PVN
GS
Uni
t 204
/24/
4633
.333
3%33
.311
.104
3PV
NG
S U
nit 3
11/2
5/47
33.3
333%
34.9
11.6
3310
0%33
.533
.542
Appe
ndix
�DPa
ge�2
�of�2
SOU
TH
ER
N C
AL
IFO
RN
IA E
DIS
ON
CO
MPA
NY
GE
NE
RA
TIO
N R
EM
AIN
ING
LIF
E D
ET
ER
MIN
AT
ION
Rem
aini
ng L
ife A
s Of
12/3
1/12
Sola
r PV
Rem
aini
ng L
ife S
pan:
DA
TE
OF
FIR
MD
AT
E F
UL
LY
TO
TA
LA
GE
RM
NG
WT
D R
EM
UN
ITM
W (D
C)
Esc
alat
ion
Fact
orO
PER
AT
ION
DE
PRE
CIA
TE
DW
EIG
HT
ING
LIF
E S
PAN
(YR
S)L
IFE
SPA
NL
IFE
SPA
NW
TD
AG
ESP
VP0
02 -
Chi
no1.
221.
560
09/2
4/09
09/2
4/29
1.3%
203.
3
16
.70.
220
0.04
3SP
VP0
03 -
Ria
lto1.
221.
643
07/1
9/10
07/1
9/30
1.4%
202.
5
17
.50.
243
0.03
4SP
VP0
05 -
Red
land
s3.
401.
686
12/2
7/10
12/2
7/30
4.0%
202.
0
18
.00.
713
0.08
0SP
VP0
06 -
Ont
ario
2.55
1.64
301
/10/
1101
/10/
312.
9%20
2.0
18.0
0.52
20.
057
SPV
P007
- R
edla
nds
3.20
1.68
612
/29/
1012
/29/
303.
7%20
2.0
18.0
0.67
20.
075
SPV
P008
- O
ntar
io2.
851.
643
12/3
0/10
12/3
0/30
3.2%
202.
0
18
.00.
583
0.06
5SP
VP0
09 -
Ont
ario
1.41
1.64
301
/10/
1101
/10/
311.
6%20
2.0
18.0
0.28
90.
032
SPV
P010
- Fo
ntan
a2.
251.
731
05/1
8/11
05/1
8/31
2.7%
201.
6
18
.40.
495
0.04
4SP
VP0
11 -
Red
land
s5.
021.
731
11/1
0/11
11/1
0/31
6.0%
201.
1
18
.91.
133
0.06
9SP
VP0
12 -
Ont
ario
0.77
1.64
312
/29/
1012
/29/
300.
9%20
2.0
18.0
0.15
70.
018
SPV
P013
- R
edla
nds
4.93
1.73
109
/15/
1109
/15/
315.
9%20
1.3
18.7
1.10
40.
076
SPV
P015
- Fo
ntan
a4.
691.
731
12/1
9/11
12/1
9/31
5.6%
201.
0
19
.01.
064
0.05
8SP
VP0
16 -
Red
land
s1.
751.
731
05/1
8/11
05/1
8/31
2.1%
201.
6
18
.40.
385
0.03
4SP
VP0
17 -
Font
ana
4.50
1.73
112
/14/
1112
/14/
315.
4%20
1.0
19.0
1.02
00.
056
SPV
P018
- Fo
ntan
a1.
941.
686
05/2
3/11
05/2
3/31
2.3%
201.
6
18
.40.
416
0.03
6SP
VP0
22 -
Red
land
s3.
091.
643
11/1
5/10
11/1
5/30
3.5%
202.
1
17
.90.
628
0.07
5SP
VP0
23 -
Font
ana
3.86
1.73
105
/12/
1105
/12/
314.
6%20
1.6
18.4
0.84
80.
076
SPV
P026
- R
ialto
8.60
1.73
108
/26/
1108
/26/
3110
.3%
201.
3
18
.71.
920
0.13
9SP
VP0
27 -
Ria
lto2.
621.
731
11/2
7/12
11/2
7/32
3.1%
200.
1
19
.90.
624
0.00
3SP
VP0
28 -
San
Ber
nard
i4.
861.
731
12/2
0/11
12/2
0/31
5.8%
201.
0
19
.01.
104
0.06
0SP
VP0
32 -
Ont
ario
1.74
1.73
112
/22/
1112
/22/
312.
1%20
1.0
19.0
0.39
40.
021
SPV
P033
- O
ntar
io1.
271.
731
12/1
2/11
12/1
2/31
1.5%
201.
1
18
.90.
289
0.01
6SP
VP0
42 -
Porte
rvill
e6.
771.
686
12/2
8/10
12/2
8/30
7.9%
202.
0
18
.01.
421
0.15
9SP
VP0
44 -
Perr
is10
.15
1.73
109
/14/
1209
/14/
3212
.2%
200.
3
19
.72.
394
0.03
684
.65
100.
0%1.
3618
.618
.639
1.36
1
APPENDIX E
Net Salvage Analysis
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 1
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
1986
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
101,
362
3,05
8
38,6
78
(3
5,62
0)-3
5.14
%
1987
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
63,7
69
-
74,1
65
(7
4,16
5)-1
16.3
0%-6
6.48
%
19
8835
200
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts18
,789
52,9
40
20
,209
32,7
3017
4.20
%-5
0.19
%-4
1.90
%
1989
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
242,
412
344
42,7
94
(4
2,45
0)-1
7.51
%-3
.72%
-25.
81%
-28.
03%
1990
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
82,2
83
1,
593
36
,242
(34,
649)
-42.
11%
-23.
74%
-12.
92%
-29.
11%
-30.
31%
1991
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
103,
252
-
17
,628
(17,
628)
-17.
07%
-28.
18%
-22.
14%
-13.
88%
-26.
67%
-28.
07%
1992
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
92,9
11
-
42,6
39
(4
2,63
9)-4
5.89
%-3
0.72
%-3
4.09
%-2
6.37
%-1
9.39
%-2
9.63
%-3
0.42
%19
9335
200
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts53
,683
745
15,6
48
(1
4,90
3)-2
7.76
%-3
9.25
%-3
0.09
%-3
3.07
%-2
6.50
%-2
0.15
%-2
9.48
%-3
0.24
%
1994
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
105,
801
6,63
4
186,
441
(179
,807
)-1
69.9
5%-1
22.0
9%-9
4.04
%-7
1.69
%-6
6.14
%-4
8.81
%-4
2.82
%-4
8.96
%-4
7.34
%19
9535
200
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts99
,566
-
31
,988
(31,
988)
-32.
13%
-103
.13%
-87.
51%
-76.
52%
-63.
04%
-59.
84%
-46.
68%
-41.
48%
-47.
02%
-45.
77%
1996
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
153,
021
4,10
1
158,
480
(154
,380
)-1
00.8
9%-7
3.78
%-1
02.1
7%-9
2.48
%-8
3.91
%-7
2.56
%-6
8.93
%-5
5.57
%-5
1.04
%-5
5.13
%19
9735
200
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts41
7,56
7
12
,245
51,5
12
(3
9,26
7)-9
.40%
-33.
94%
-33.
67%
-52.
25%
-50.
67%
-50.
19%
-46.
85%
-46.
50%
-41.
30%
-38.
34%
1998
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
344,
817
17,3
95
16
5,28
5
(1
47,8
90)
-42.
89%
-24.
55%
-37.
31%
-36.
80%
-49.
37%
-48.
38%
-48.
20%
-45.
86%
-45.
64%
-41.
62%
1999
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
881,
002
-
32
1,08
9
(3
21,0
89)
-36.
45%
-38.
26%
-30.
93%
-36.
89%
-36.
64%
-43.
68%
-43.
27%
-43.
38%
-42.
17%
-42.
17%
2000
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
740,
451
-
20
7,77
6
(2
07,7
76)
-28.
06%
-32.
62%
-34.
42%
-30.
04%
-34.
31%
-34.
23%
-39.
46%
-39.
24%
-39.
45%
-38.
68%
2001
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
397,
842
-
29
8,03
4
(2
98,0
34)
-74.
91%
-44.
44%
-40.
95%
-41.
23%
-36.
45%
-39.
81%
-39.
56%
-43.
96%
-43.
68%
-43.
75%
2002
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
603,
560
-
28
3,63
2
(2
83,6
32)
-46.
99%
-58.
09%
-45.
32%
-42.
34%
-42.
40%
-38.
33%
-41.
04%
-40.
80%
-44.
45%
-44.
21%
2003
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
473,
459
-
18
2,05
7
(1
82,0
57)
-38.
45%
-43.
24%
-51.
78%
-43.
85%
-41.
75%
-41.
86%
-38.
35%
-40.
73%
-40.
53%
-43.
77%
2004
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
346,
364
-
20
4,45
8
(2
04,4
58)
-59.
03%
-47.
15%
-47.
08%
-53.
16%
-45.
91%
-43.
48%
-43.
43%
-40.
05%
-42.
19%
-41.
96%
2005
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
723,
379
-
70
,702
(70,
702)
-9.7
7%-2
5.72
%-2
9.63
%-3
4.51
%-4
0.83
%-3
7.95
%-3
7.63
%-3
8.03
%-3
5.61
%-3
7.57
%20
0635
200
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts17
3,03
8
52
5
11
3,23
8
(1
12,7
14)
-65.
14%
-20.
46%
-31.
21%
-33.
21%
-36.
79%
-42.
37%
-39.
31%
-38.
73%
-39.
03%
-36.
61%
2007
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
204,
099
-
13
9,36
8
(1
39,3
68)
-68.
28%
-66.
84%
-29.
33%
-36.
44%
-36.
94%
-39.
34%
-44.
18%
-40.
92%
-40.
06%
-40.
26%
2008
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
337,
973
-
60
,250
(60,
250)
-17.
83%
-36.
82%
-43.
68%
-26.
63%
-32.
92%
-34.
08%
-36.
80%
-41.
45%
-38.
97%
-38.
52%
2009
3520
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
851,
385
128,
044
366,
446
(238
,402
)-2
8.00
%-2
5.11
%-3
1.43
%-3
5.16
%-2
7.14
%-3
1.33
%-3
2.41
%-3
4.78
%-3
8.67
%-3
7.05
%20
1035
200
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts27
2,20
0
16
,399
335,
785
(319
,387
)-1
17.3
4%-4
9.64
%-4
2.29
%-4
5.47
%-4
7.32
%-3
6.72
%-3
9.38
%-3
9.25
%-4
0.42
%-4
3.55
%20
1135
200
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts1,
102,
062
53
,940
950,
006
(896
,066
)-8
1.31
%-8
8.44
%-6
5.32
%-5
9.06
%-5
9.74
%-6
0.06
%-5
0.13
%-5
0.90
%-4
9.59
%-4
9.28
%20
1235
200
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts22
2,57
2
45
,986
176,
911
(130
,924
)-5
8.82
%-7
7.53
%-8
4.32
%-6
4.73
%-5
9.04
%-5
9.67
%-5
9.97
%-5
0.63
%-5
1.32
%-5
0.02
%
`
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 2
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
1986
3530
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t4,
292,
796
1,
703,
607
58
1,58
8
1,
122,
019
26.1
4%
1987
3530
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t3,
430,
023
60
2,84
2
25
2,69
8
35
0,14
410
.21%
19.0
6%19
8835
300
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
6,08
0,46
0
622,
523
555,
342
67,1
811.
10%
4.39
%19
8935
300
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
5,86
2,10
0
1,64
0,34
8
422,
455
1,21
7,89
320
.78%
10.7
6%10
.64%
14.0
2%
1990
3530
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t12
,871
,565
3,52
3,72
8
2,16
5,26
1
1,35
8,46
810
.55%
13.7
5%10
.65%
10.6
0%12
.65%
1991
3530
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t8,
289,
012
3,
047,
080
1,
738,
310
1,
308,
770
15.7
9%12
.60%
14.3
8%11
.94%
11.7
8%13
.29%
1992
3530
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t4,
380,
753
1,
352,
336
35
7,48
1
99
4,85
522
.71%
18.1
8%14
.34%
15.5
4%13
.20%
12.9
5%14
.20%
1993
3530
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t9,
681,
589
2,
489,
972
1,
329,
643
1,
160,
329
11.9
8%15
.33%
15.5
0%13
.69%
14.7
0%12
.95%
12.7
6%13
.81%
1994
3530
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t5,
701,
867
1,
535,
904
62
0,77
3
91
5,13
016
.05%
13.4
9%15
.53%
15.6
1%14
.02%
14.8
7%13
.28%
13.1
0%14
.02%
19
9535
300
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
13,0
51,5
69
1,
051,
184
2,
080,
918
(1
,029
,734
)-7
.89%
-0.6
1%3.
68%
6.22
%8.
15%
8.72
%9.
90%
9.09
%9.
15%
10.1
4%19
9635
300
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
15,1
46,9
97
90
1,65
6
2,
730,
651
(1
,828
,994
)-1
2.07
%-1
0.14
%-5
.73%
-1.8
0%0.
44%
2.70
%4.
16%
5.46
%5.
14%
5.34
%19
9735
300
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
11,4
82,2
07
73
2,14
3
1,
394,
066
(6
61,9
23)
-5.7
6%-9
.35%
-8.8
7%-5
.74%
-2.6
2%-0
.76%
1.27
%2.
75%
3.97
%3.
78%
1998
3530
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t9,
125,
216
1,
423,
626
1,
717,
859
(2
94,2
33)
-3.2
2%-4
.64%
-7.7
9%-7
.82%
-5.3
2%-2
.71%
-1.0
9%0.
73%
2.14
%3.
29%
1999
3530
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t12
,385
,259
523,
166
1,82
4,64
4
(1,3
01,4
77)
-10.
51%
-7.4
2%-6
.84%
-8.4
9%-8
.36%
-6.2
8%-3
.97%
-2.5
3%-0
.83%
0.61
%20
0035
300
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
20,9
43,1
93
1,
608,
417
2,
088,
640
(4
80,2
23)
-2.2
9%-5
.35%
-4.8
9%-5
.08%
-6.6
1%-6
.81%
-5.3
3%-3
.61%
-2.4
8%-1
.10%
2001
3530
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t13
,260
,097
1,85
5,73
8
3,22
5,49
4
(1,3
69,7
56)
-10.
33%
-5.4
1%-6
.76%
-6.1
8%-6
.11%
-7.2
1%-7
.30%
-5.9
9%-4
.42%
-3.3
8%20
0235
300
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
39,1
88,7
32
50
4,94
9
2,
758,
828
(2
,253
,879
)-5
.75%
-6.9
1%-5
.59%
-6.3
0%-6
.01%
-5.9
8%-6
.74%
-6.8
5%-5
.92%
-4.7
6%20
0335
300
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
29,8
26,7
97
1,
931,
598
3,
630,
094
(1
,698
,496
)-5
.69%
-5.7
3%-6
.47%
-5.6
2%-6
.14%
-5.9
3%-5
.92%
-6.5
3%-6
.64%
-5.8
8%20
0435
300
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
29,6
36,0
47
25
7,61
4
3,
508,
361
(3
,250
,747
)-1
0.97
%-8
.32%
-7.3
0%-7
.66%
-6.8
1%-7
.13%
-6.9
0%-6
.82%
-7.2
6%-7
.30%
2005
3530
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t33
,047
,138
223,
816
4,86
4,92
3
(4,6
41,1
07)
-14.
04%
-12.
59%
-10.
37%
-8.9
9%-9
.12%
-8.2
5%-8
.41%
-8.1
6%-8
.02%
-8.3
1%20
0635
300
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
20,0
64,5
72
34
2,08
4
5,
049,
115
(4
,707
,031
)-2
3.46
%-1
7.60
%-1
5.23
%-1
2.70
%-1
0.91
%-1
0.86
%-9
.89%
-9.9
3%-9
.64%
-9.4
4%20
0735
300
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
29,1
05,6
57
36
6,60
5
7,
505,
787
(7
,139
,181
)-2
4.53
%-2
4.09
%-2
0.05
%-1
7.65
%-1
5.13
%-1
3.10
%-1
2.91
%-1
1.88
%-1
1.80
%-1
1.47
%20
0835
300
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
19,6
97,7
81
33
2,66
7
5,
626,
460
(5
,293
,794
)-2
6.88
%-2
5.48
%-2
4.89
%-2
1.37
%-1
9.03
%-1
6.56
%-1
4.45
%-1
4.20
%-1
3.13
%-1
3.00
%20
0935
300
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
17,8
66,7
46
3,
570,
620
9,
901,
181
(6
,330
,561
)-3
5.43
%-3
0.95
%-2
8.14
%-2
7.06
%-2
3.47
%-2
0.99
%-1
8.44
%-1
6.17
%-1
5.83
%-1
4.71
%20
1035
300
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
34,1
01,0
38
2,
530,
657
11
,419
,631
(8,8
88,9
75)
-26.
07%
-29.
29%
-28.
62%
-27.
44%
-26.
78%
-24.
04%
-21.
93%
-19.
66%
-17.
50%
-17.
15%
2011
3530
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t23
,837
,092
3,29
6,83
9
8,01
8,37
2
(4,7
21,5
32)
-19.
81%
-23.
49%
-26.
31%
-26.
42%
-25.
98%
-25.
63%
-23.
48%
-21.
69%
-19.
68%
-17.
70%
2012
3530
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t66
,749
,956
3,51
7,95
2
12,2
23,7
65
(8
,705
,813
)-1
3.04
%-1
4.82
%-1
7.90
%-2
0.10
%-2
0.92
%-2
1.47
%-2
1.66
%-2
0.63
%-1
9.58
%-1
8.22
%
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 3
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
1986
3540
0 To
wer
s &
Fix
ture
s52
,847
44,1
82
25
4,98
7
(2
10,8
06)
-398
.90%
1987
3540
0 To
wer
s &
Fix
ture
s35
,722
20,4
78
15
2,01
1
(1
31,5
33)
-368
.21%
-386
.52%
1988
3540
0 To
wer
s &
Fix
ture
s82
4,50
9
7,
198
43
2,07
8
(4
24,8
80)
-51.
53%
-64.
68%
-84.
03%
19
8935
400
Tow
ers
& F
ixtu
res
43,4
56
16
,468
57,8
60
(4
1,39
1)-9
5.25
%-5
3.72
%-6
6.15
%-8
4.54
%
19
9035
400
Tow
ers
& F
ixtu
res
210,
435
30,4
95
79
,495
(48,
999)
-23.
28%
-35.
60%
-47.
78%
-58.
05%
-73.
49%
19
9135
400
Tow
ers
& F
ixtu
res
143,
417
6,16
5
139,
692
(133
,527
)-9
3.10
%-5
1.58
%-5
6.36
%-5
3.10
%-6
2.05
%-7
5.64
%19
9235
400
Tow
ers
& F
ixtu
res
81,6
40
48
,899
23,2
03
25
,695
31.4
7%-4
7.91
%-3
6.01
%-4
1.39
%-4
7.80
%-5
6.35
%-6
9.36
%
1993
3540
0 To
wer
s &
Fix
ture
s15
5,61
5
21
,851
143,
442
(121
,590
)-7
8.14
%-4
0.42
%-6
0.27
%-4
7.10
%-5
0.40
%-5
1.04
%-5
8.62
%-7
0.24
%19
9435
400
Tow
ers
& F
ixtu
res
131,
608
133,
682
176,
885
(43,
203)
-32.
83%
-57.
37%
-37.
71%
-53.
22%
-44.
50%
-47.
38%
-49.
53%
-56.
53%
-67.
31%
1995
3540
0 To
wer
s &
Fix
ture
s18
,605
14,8
52
15
,315
(463
)-2
.49%
-29.
07%
-54.
04%
-36.
02%
-51.
44%
-43.
45%
-46.
32%
-48.
99%
-55.
92%
-66.
60%
1996
3540
0 To
wer
s &
Fix
ture
s91
,547
2,41
4
80,8
80
(7
8,46
6)-8
5.71
%-7
1.65
%-5
0.52
%-6
1.33
%-4
5.52
%-5
6.48
%-4
8.09
%-5
0.43
%-5
0.96
%-5
7.49
%19
9735
400
Tow
ers
& F
ixtu
res
280,
468
12,3
14
29
0,51
2
(2
78,1
99)
-99.
19%
-95.
87%
-91.
43%
-76.
66%
-77.
00%
-65.
34%
-69.
75%
-60.
97%
-62.
25%
-57.
79%
1998
3540
0 To
wer
s &
Fix
ture
s34
,966
16,5
12
25
,549
(9,0
37)
-25.
85%
-91.
06%
-89.
86%
-86.
04%
-73.
47%
-74.
49%
-63.
60%
-68.
11%
-59.
90%
-61.
19%
1999
3540
0 To
wer
s &
Fix
ture
s31
9,29
3
51
,979
219,
315
(167
,336
)-5
2.41
%-4
9.79
%-7
1.62
%-7
3.39
%-7
1.62
%-6
5.80
%-6
7.66
%-6
0.39
%-6
4.12
%-5
8.27
%20
0035
400
Tow
ers
& F
ixtu
res
36,4
68
7,
157
26
,059
(18,
902)
-51.
83%
-52.
35%
-49.
98%
-70.
54%
-72.
36%
-70.
70%
-65.
24%
-67.
12%
-60.
12%
-63.
78%
2001
3540
0 To
wer
s &
Fix
ture
s10
1,92
4
93
,536
184,
481
(90,
945)
-89.
23%
-79.
37%
-60.
56%
-58.
10%
-73.
01%
-74.
35%
-72.
84%
-67.
65%
-69.
04%
-62.
49%
2002
3540
0 To
wer
s &
Fix
ture
s15
3,70
0
5,
542
12
3,17
0
(1
17,6
28)
-76.
53%
-81.
59%
-77.
88%
-64.
58%
-62.
48%
-73.
59%
-74.
68%
-73.
38%
-68.
82%
-69.
91%
2003
3540
0 To
wer
s &
Fix
ture
s23
1,67
9
15
,862
617,
759
(601
,897
)-2
59.8
0%-1
86.7
1%-1
66.3
2%-1
58.3
5%-1
18.2
2%-1
14.5
5%-1
10.8
3%-1
08.9
9%-1
07.4
3%-1
00.4
2%20
0435
400
Tow
ers
& F
ixtu
res
37,1
23
6,
985
12
,760
(5,7
75)
-15.
56%
-226
.07%
-171
.67%
-155
.65%
-148
.90%
-113
.89%
-110
.53%
-107
.87%
-106
.29%
-104
.82%
2005
3540
0 To
wer
s &
Fix
ture
s75
,681
46,8
37
24
9,50
8
(2
02,6
72)
-267
.80%
-184
.79%
-235
.23%
-186
.27%
-169
.79%
-163
.03%
-126
.08%
-122
.54%
-117
.39%
-115
.26%
2006
3540
0 To
wer
s &
Fix
ture
s68
,311
39,7
05
49
,262
(9,5
56)
-13.
99%
-147
.39%
-120
.37%
-198
.62%
-165
.50%
-153
.87%
-148
.59%
-118
.60%
-115
.54%
-112
.12%
2007
3540
0 To
wer
s &
Fix
ture
s19
5,10
4
38
,225
211,
527
(173
,302
)-8
8.83
%-6
9.42
%-1
13.6
9%-1
04.0
1%-1
63.3
8%-1
45.8
6%-1
39.1
7%-1
35.6
3%-1
13.8
4%-1
11.3
9%20
0835
400
Tow
ers
& F
ixtu
res
9,21
1
21,8
12
26
,047
(4,2
35)
-45.
97%
-86.
89%
-68.
63%
-111
.90%
-102
.62%
-161
.63%
-144
.66%
-138
.19%
-134
.72%
-113
.33%
2009
3540
0 To
wer
s &
Fix
ture
s19
7,44
9
29
,695
321,
615
(291
,920
)-1
47.8
5%-1
43.3
1%-1
16.8
5%-1
01.9
0%-1
24.9
1%-1
17.9
4%-1
58.2
9%-1
45.3
1%-1
39.9
7%-1
37.0
7%20
1035
400
Tow
ers
& F
ixtu
res
5,19
6
296
29,8
83
(2
9,58
7)-5
69.4
2%-1
58.6
6%-1
53.7
6%-1
22.6
3%-1
07.0
1%-1
29.1
0%-1
21.9
3%-1
60.9
0%-1
47.5
7%-1
42.0
4%20
1135
400
Tow
ers
& F
ixtu
res
451,
459
73,3
24
97
9,99
9
(9
06,6
75)
-200
.83%
-205
.03%
-187
.77%
-185
.80%
-163
.76%
-152
.72%
-161
.41%
-156
.20%
-175
.08%
-164
.45%
2012
3540
0 To
wer
s &
Fix
ture
s12
5,95
6
4,
662
35
7,47
0
(3
52,8
07)
-280
.10%
-218
.12%
-221
.26%
-202
.68%
-200
.85%
-178
.64%
-167
.96%
-174
.66%
-169
.59%
-184
.55%
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 4
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
1986
3550
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
1,51
8,03
6
438,
116
811,
666
(373
,550
)-2
4.61
%
1987
3550
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
1,12
4,40
0
366,
125
789,
370
(423
,245
)-3
7.64
%-3
0.15
%19
8835
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s1,
724,
976
60
6,54
8
1,
108,
639
(5
02,0
91)
-29.
11%
-32.
48%
-29.
74%
1989
3550
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
1,03
4,05
8
557,
280
755,
714
(198
,434
)-1
9.19
%-2
5.39
%-2
8.94
%-2
7.72
%
1990
3550
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
1,99
1,78
5
753,
024
1,22
5,35
1
(472
,327
)-2
3.71
%-2
2.17
%-2
4.69
%-2
7.17
%-2
6.64
%
19
9135
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s1,
718,
015
55
8,20
2
1,
084,
725
(5
26,5
23)
-30.
65%
-26.
92%
-25.
24%
-26.
27%
-27.
95%
-27.
40%
19
9235
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s1,
651,
069
44
0,75
4
75
5,56
3
(3
14,8
08)
-19.
07%
-24.
97%
-24.
50%
-23.
65%
-24.
81%
-26.
37%
-26.
12%
1993
3550
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
1,26
6,21
2
558,
183
1,14
3,32
3
(585
,140
)-4
6.21
%-3
0.85
%-3
0.77
%-2
8.65
%-2
7.37
%-2
7.69
%-2
8.76
%-2
8.23
%
19
9435
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s1,
483,
752
69
7,34
0
1,
169,
684
(4
72,3
44)
-31.
83%
-38.
45%
-31.
18%
-31.
03%
-29.
23%
-28.
10%
-28.
26%
-29.
14%
-28.
63%
19
9535
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s1,
477,
493
34
5,47
5
84
1,96
6
(4
96,4
91)
-33.
60%
-32.
72%
-36.
76%
-31.
79%
-31.
53%
-29.
91%
-28.
86%
-28.
90%
-29.
63%
-29.
12%
1996
3550
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
1,03
6,88
3
541,
338
1,13
0,19
4
(588
,857
)-5
6.79
%-4
3.17
%-3
8.96
%-4
0.70
%-3
5.54
%-3
4.57
%-3
2.53
%-3
1.35
%-3
1.06
%-3
1.57
%19
9735
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s1,
398,
739
49
4,75
9
1,
254,
825
(7
60,0
66)
-54.
34%
-55.
38%
-47.
16%
-42.
95%
-43.
57%
-38.
70%
-37.
32%
-35.
07%
-33.
81%
-33.
26%
1998
3550
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
1,42
1,69
8
1,00
1,43
5
1,52
9,91
5
(528
,480
)-3
7.17
%-4
5.69
%-4
8.67
%-4
4.50
%-4
1.74
%-4
2.44
%-3
8.48
%-3
7.30
%-3
5.29
%-3
4.14
%19
9935
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s1,
846,
035
1,
052,
060
2,
530,
115
(1
,478
,055
)-8
0.07
%-6
1.40
%-5
9.29
%-5
8.83
%-5
3.64
%-4
9.91
%-4
9.44
%-4
5.11
%-4
3.24
%-4
0.70
%20
0035
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s2,
609,
213
42
0,14
2
3,
209,
785
(2
,789
,643
)-1
06.9
2%-9
5.79
%-8
1.61
%-7
6.37
%-7
3.93
%-6
7.84
%-6
3.10
%-6
1.40
%-5
6.47
%-5
3.68
%20
0135
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s2,
113,
517
76
7,64
5
2,
474,
819
(1
,707
,174
)-8
0.77
%-9
5.22
%-9
0.96
%-8
1.39
%-7
7.36
%-7
5.31
%-7
0.14
%-6
5.89
%-6
4.19
%-5
9.62
%20
0235
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s3,
710,
467
77
2,80
8
3,
429,
557
(2
,656
,749
)-7
1.60
%-7
4.93
%-8
4.83
%-8
3.97
%-7
8.29
%-7
5.73
%-7
4.34
%-7
0.48
%-6
7.13
%-6
5.69
%20
0335
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s3,
729,
142
70
5,00
7
7,
324,
518
(6
,619
,511
)-1
77.5
1%-1
24.6
9%-1
14.9
7%-1
13.2
4%-1
08.8
7%-1
02.2
7%-9
8.28
%-9
5.87
%-9
1.12
%-8
6.89
%20
0435
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s2,
452,
036
60
7,71
1
3,
110,
453
(2
,502
,742
)-1
02.0
7%-1
47.5
8%-1
19.0
8%-1
12.3
4%-1
11.3
7%-1
07.8
6%-1
02.2
4%-9
8.76
%-9
6.62
%-9
2.35
%20
0535
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s4,
558,
437
78
6,98
8
5,
554,
081
(4
,767
,093
)-1
04.5
8%-1
03.7
0%-1
29.3
3%-1
14.5
1%-1
10.2
0%-1
09.7
5%-1
07.1
5%-1
02.7
1%-9
9.88
%-9
8.08
%20
0635
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s5,
808,
638
1,
342,
264
6,
820,
595
(5
,478
,331
)-9
4.31
%-9
8.83
%-9
9.45
%-1
17.0
4%-1
08.7
2%-1
06.0
8%-1
06.1
6%-1
04.3
7%-1
00.9
9%-9
8.79
%20
0735
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s3,
348,
922
85
9,44
5
5,
852,
507
(4
,993
,062
)-1
49.0
9%-1
14.3
5%-1
11.1
0%-1
09.7
3%-1
22.4
3%-1
14.4
4%-1
11.6
8%-1
11.2
4%-1
09.3
3%-1
06.0
8%20
0835
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s4,
173,
710
73
8,11
4
2,
822,
436
(2
,084
,322
)-4
9.94
%-9
4.08
%-9
4.18
%-9
6.83
%-9
7.46
%-1
09.8
6%-1
04.7
5%-1
03.0
6%-1
03.3
7%-1
02.1
2%20
0935
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s3,
037,
919
50
2,94
8
4,
427,
029
(3
,924
,080
)-1
29.1
7%-8
3.32
%-1
04.1
8%-1
00.6
8%-1
01.5
3%-1
01.5
8%-1
12.0
3%-1
07.1
6%-1
05.4
7%-1
05.5
7%20
1035
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s3,
474,
106
18
9,78
0
3,
441,
806
(3
,252
,026
)-9
3.61
%-1
10.2
0%-8
6.66
%-1
01.5
6%-9
9.44
%-1
00.4
0%-1
00.5
5%-1
09.9
3%-1
05.7
9%-1
04.3
3%20
1135
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s5,
248,
922
29
0,18
5
6,
565,
472
(6
,275
,287
)-1
19.5
5%-1
09.2
2%-1
14.3
7%-9
7.50
%-1
06.4
6%-1
03.6
5%-1
03.7
9%-1
03.6
6%-1
11.3
4%-1
07.6
1%20
1235
500
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s4,
857,
840
19
4,20
4
6,
944,
627
(6
,750
,423
)-1
38.9
6%-1
28.8
8%-1
19.8
6%-1
21.5
6%-1
07.1
8%-1
13.0
0%-1
09.3
7%-1
08.7
4%-1
08.3
0%-1
14.6
4%
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 5
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
1986
3560
0 O
H C
ondu
ctor
s1,
156,
273
44
5,75
2
82
7,71
2
(3
81,9
60)
-33.
03%
19
8735
600
OH
Con
duct
ors
480,
753
232,
954
676,
792
(443
,838
)-9
2.32
%-5
0.45
%
19
8835
600
OH
Con
duct
ors
694,
490
315,
449
750,
677
(435
,228
)-6
2.67
%-7
4.80
%-5
4.09
%
1989
3560
0 O
H C
ondu
ctor
s4,
342,
982
34
4,42
7
87
0,88
4
(5
26,4
56)
-12.
12%
-19.
09%
-25.
47%
-26.
78%
1990
3560
0 O
H C
ondu
ctor
s2,
173,
441
1,
033,
421
1,
331,
108
(2
97,6
87)
-13.
70%
-12.
65%
-17.
46%
-22.
14%
-23.
57%
19
9135
600
OH
Con
duct
ors
641,
741
325,
505
637,
729
(312
,224
)-4
8.65
%-2
1.67
%-1
5.88
%-2
0.01
%-2
4.18
%-2
5.26
%
19
9235
600
OH
Con
duct
ors
996,
876
410,
443
676,
423
(265
,980
)-2
6.68
%-3
5.29
%-2
2.98
%-1
7.20
%-2
0.76
%-2
4.45
%-2
5.40
%
1993
3560
0 O
H C
ondu
ctor
s45
7,83
6
35
0,83
9
1,
069,
643
(7
18,8
03)
-157
.00%
-67.
70%
-61.
87%
-37.
35%
-24.
63%
-27.
47%
-30.
65%
-30.
90%
1994
3560
0 O
H C
ondu
ctor
s43
9,23
7
52
9,30
8
1,
145,
470
(6
16,1
62)
-140
.28%
-148
.81%
-84.
53%
-75.
45%
-46.
95%
-30.
24%
-32.
55%
-35.
36%
-35.
12%
19
9535
600
OH
Con
duct
ors
419,
941
136,
492
525,
991
(389
,499
)-9
2.75
%-1
17.0
5%-1
30.9
4%-8
6.02
%-7
7.91
%-5
0.70
%-3
3.01
%-3
5.04
%-3
7.62
%-3
7.17
%19
9635
600
OH
Con
duct
ors
604,
352
281,
422
631,
197
(349
,775
)-5
7.88
%-7
2.17
%-9
2.61
%-1
07.9
6%-8
0.19
%-7
4.51
%-5
1.45
%-3
4.50
%-3
6.32
%-3
8.71
%19
9735
600
OH
Con
duct
ors
592,
852
139,
451
338,
370
(198
,919
)-3
3.55
%-4
5.83
%-5
8.02
%-7
5.59
%-9
0.41
%-7
2.32
%-6
8.66
%-4
9.78
%-3
4.45
%-3
6.17
%19
9835
600
OH
Con
duct
ors
394,
813
548,
351
760,
858
(212
,507
)-5
3.82
%-4
1.66
%-4
7.81
%-5
7.19
%-7
2.08
%-8
5.45
%-7
0.45
%-6
7.37
%-5
0.02
%-3
5.14
%19
9935
600
OH
Con
duct
ors
432,
389
442,
459
1,26
6,98
6
(824
,526
)-1
90.6
9%-1
25.3
7%-8
7.04
%-7
8.33
%-8
0.81
%-8
9.87
%-9
9.07
%-8
2.43
%-7
8.08
%-5
8.52
%20
0035
600
OH
Con
duct
ors
821,
486
245,
414
711,
395
(465
,980
)-5
6.72
%-1
02.9
2%-9
1.16
%-7
5.93
%-7
2.09
%-7
4.75
%-8
2.52
%-9
0.71
%-7
8.34
%-7
5.06
%20
0135
600
OH
Con
duct
ors
586,
501
578,
017
887,
130
(309
,113
)-5
2.70
%-5
5.05
%-8
6.92
%-8
1.07
%-7
1.11
%-6
8.78
%-7
1.39
%-7
8.44
%-8
6.02
%-7
5.72
%20
0235
600
OH
Con
duct
ors
1,21
5,44
6
478,
224
1,87
9,84
4
(1,4
01,6
20)
-115
.32%
-94.
94%
-82.
97%
-98.
21%
-93.
13%
-84.
40%
-80.
95%
-81.
93%
-86.
58%
-91.
99%
2003
3560
0 O
H C
ondu
ctor
s1,
111,
268
28
9,41
7
1,
950,
305
(1
,660
,888
)-1
49.4
6%-1
31.6
2%-1
15.7
4%-1
02.7
6%-1
11.8
8%-1
06.8
6%-9
8.42
%-9
4.17
%-9
4.07
%-9
7.14
%20
0435
600
OH
Con
duct
ors
394,
845
388,
083
968,
623
(580
,539
)-1
47.0
3%-1
48.8
2%-1
33.8
6%-1
19.4
7%-1
06.9
9%-1
14.9
2%-1
10.0
6%-1
01.8
8%-9
7.56
%-9
7.25
%20
0535
600
OH
Con
duct
ors
1,33
7,48
4
369,
297
2,97
4,66
5
(2,6
05,3
68)
-194
.80%
-183
.91%
-170
.45%
-153
.94%
-141
.16%
-128
.47%
-133
.03%
-128
.06%
-119
.93%
-114
.92%
2006
3560
0 O
H C
ondu
ctor
s2,
768,
106
1,
016,
836
5,
280,
910
(4
,264
,074
)-1
54.0
4%-1
67.3
2%-1
65.5
4%-1
62.3
5%-1
53.9
8%-1
45.9
7%-1
37.0
7%-1
39.7
4%-1
36.0
0%-1
29.7
1%20
0735
600
OH
Con
duct
ors
822,
315
689,
466
1,11
4,42
4
(424
,958
)-5
1.68
%-1
30.6
0%-1
48.0
2%-1
47.9
5%-1
48.2
1%-1
42.9
8%-1
36.5
5%-1
29.3
1%-1
32.1
1%-1
28.9
8%20
0835
600
OH
Con
duct
ors
982,
551
274,
447
1,43
1,78
7
(1,1
57,3
40)
-117
.79%
-87.
67%
-127
.85%
-143
.00%
-143
.25%
-144
.18%
-140
.12%
-134
.55%
-128
.19%
-130
.77%
2009
3560
0 O
H C
ondu
ctor
s94
9,40
2
17
6,43
4
2,
070,
169
(1
,893
,735
)-1
99.4
7%-1
57.9
3%-1
26.2
1%-1
40.1
6%-1
50.8
1%-1
50.6
1%-1
50.4
5%-1
46.0
0%-1
40.6
2%-1
34.3
4%20
1035
600
OH
Con
duct
ors
201,
188
(16,
153)
2,86
5,56
6.12
(2
,881
,719
)-1
432.
35%
-415
.04%
-278
.12%
-215
.12%
-185
.58%
-187
.33%
-185
.19%
-180
.56%
-172
.45%
-165
.68%
2011
3560
0 O
H C
ondu
ctor
s1,
144,
118
13
0,31
6
1,
834,
955
(1
,704
,640
)-1
48.9
9%-3
40.9
2%-2
82.3
9%-2
33.0
4%-1
96.6
6%-1
79.4
9%-1
81.9
8%-1
80.3
8%-1
76.8
4%-1
69.9
9%20
1235
600
OH
Con
duct
ors
1,29
1,31
9
50,2
10
1,
712,
074
(1
,661
,864
)-1
28.7
0%-1
38.2
3%-2
36.9
8%-2
27.0
5%-2
03.5
5%-1
80.3
8%-1
71.4
5%-1
74.7
4%-1
73.6
3%-1
71.1
9%
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 6
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
1986
3570
0 U
G C
ondu
it-
-
-
0
NA
1987
3570
0 U
G C
ondu
it-
-
-
0
NA
NA
19
8835
700
UG
Con
duit
-
-
-
0N
AN
AN
A
19
8935
700
UG
Con
duit
-
-
-
0N
AN
AN
AN
A
1990
3570
0 U
G C
ondu
it10
9,12
0
-
1,26
2
(1,2
62)
-1.1
6%-1
.16%
-1.1
6%-1
.16%
-1.1
6%
1991
3570
0 U
G C
ondu
it-
-
-
0
NA
-1.1
6%-1
.16%
-1.1
6%-1
.16%
-1.1
6%
19
9235
700
UG
Con
duit
-
-
-
0N
AN
A-1
.16%
-1.1
6%-1
.16%
-1.1
6%-1
.16%
19
9335
700
UG
Con
duit
7,43
1
-
-
00.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
-1.0
8%-1
.08%
-1.0
8%-1
.08%
-1.0
8%19
9435
700
UG
Con
duit
2,23
4
-
-
00.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%-1
.06%
-1.0
6%-1
.06%
-1.0
6%-1
.06%
1995
3570
0 U
G C
ondu
it-
-
-
0
NA
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
-1.0
6%-1
.06%
-1.0
6%-1
.06%
-1.0
6%19
9635
700
UG
Con
duit
991
-
-
00.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%-1
.05%
-1.0
5%-1
.05%
-1.0
5%19
9735
700
UG
Con
duit
-
-
-
0N
A0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%-1
.05%
-1.0
5%-1
.05%
1998
3570
0 U
G C
ondu
it-
-
-
0
NA
NA
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
-1.0
5%-1
.05%
1999
3570
0 U
G C
ondu
it65
1
-
-
0
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%-1
.05%
2000
3570
0 U
G C
ondu
it-
-
-
0
NA
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%20
0135
700
UG
Con
duit
12,6
40
-
-
0
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
2002
3570
0 U
G C
ondu
it-
-
-
0
NA
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%20
0335
700
UG
Con
duit
-
-
-
0N
AN
A0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%20
0435
700
UG
Con
duit
-
-
-
0N
AN
AN
A0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
2005
3570
0 U
G C
ondu
it9,
887
-
-
0
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
2006
3570
0 U
G C
ondu
it25
,565
198
198
00.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%20
0735
700
UG
Con
duit
1,87
0
-
-
00.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%20
0835
700
UG
Con
duit
11,9
14
-
-
0
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
2009
3570
0 U
G C
ondu
it83
,810
12,6
05
(3
,576
)
16,1
8119
.31%
16.9
0%16
.58%
13.1
4%12
.16%
12.1
6%12
.16%
12.1
6%11
.11%
11.1
1%20
1035
700
UG
Con
duit
-
0
15
4,01
3
(1
54,0
13)
NA
-164
.46%
-143
.99%
-141
.23%
-111
.91%
-103
.60%
-103
.60%
-103
.60%
-103
.60%
-94.
61%
2011
3570
0 U
G C
ondu
it22
3,12
7
10
,861
490
10,3
714.
65%
-64.
38%
-41.
53%
-39.
98%
-39.
74%
-36.
81%
-35.
79%
-35.
79%
-35.
79%
-35.
79%
2012
3570
0 U
G C
ondu
it-
-
-
0
NA
4.65
%-6
4.38
%-4
1.53
%-3
9.98
%-3
9.74
%-3
6.81
%-3
5.79
%-3
5.79
%-3
5.79
%
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 7
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
1986
3580
0 U
G C
ondu
ctor
s33
,521
4,33
9
4,33
9
00.
00%
19
8735
800
UG
Con
duct
ors
29,8
20
1,
074
12
,324
(11,
251)
-37.
73%
-17.
76%
19
8835
800
UG
Con
duct
ors
86,1
21
7,
316
65
,011
(57,
695)
-66.
99%
-59.
47%
-46.
13%
1989
3580
0 U
G C
ondu
ctor
s65
,610
20,8
09
40
,063
(19,
255)
-29.
35%
-50.
71%
-48.
58%
-41.
01%
1990
3580
0 U
G C
ondu
ctor
s-
-
-
0
NA
-29.
35%
-50.
71%
-48.
58%
-41.
01%
19
9135
800
UG
Con
duct
ors
90,1
59
43
,683
75,8
29
(3
2,14
5)-3
5.65
%-3
5.65
%-3
3.00
%-4
5.10
%-4
4.29
%-3
9.43
%19
9235
800
UG
Con
duct
ors
134,
419
71,4
48
67
,052
4,39
63.
27%
-12.
36%
-12.
36%
-16.
20%
-27.
82%
-28.
55%
-26.
37%
1993
3580
0 U
G C
ondu
ctor
s77
4,37
8
11
5,74
3
26
9,33
0
(1
53,5
88)
-19.
83%
-16.
42%
-18.
15%
-18.
15%
-18.
84%
-22.
45%
-22.
83%
-22.
20%
19
9435
800
UG
Con
duct
ors
121,
238
38,2
60
46
,227
(7,9
66)
-6.5
7%-1
8.04
%-1
5.26
%-1
6.90
%-1
6.90
%-1
7.59
%-2
0.93
%-2
1.32
%-2
0.78
%19
9535
800
UG
Con
duct
ors
138,
949
-
30
,703
(30,
703)
-22.
10%
-14.
86%
-18.
58%
-16.
07%
-17.
47%
-17.
47%
-18.
06%
-21.
05%
-21.
39%
-20.
91%
1996
3580
0 U
G C
ondu
ctor
s11
9,45
3
2,
788
95
,230
(92,
442)
-77.
39%
-47.
66%
-34.
54%
-24.
67%
-21.
76%
-22.
66%
-22.
66%
-22.
97%
-25.
45%
-25.
68%
1997
3580
0 U
G C
ondu
ctor
s19
3,99
1
58
,444
113,
062
(54,
617)
-28.
15%
-46.
92%
-39.
29%
-32.
38%
-25.
17%
-22.
59%
-23.
34%
-23.
34%
-23.
58%
-25.
75%
1998
3580
0 U
G C
ondu
ctor
s31
7,39
7
88
,275
122,
715
(34,
440)
-10.
85%
-17.
41%
-28.
77%
-27.
57%
-24.
71%
-22.
44%
-20.
52%
-21.
24%
-21.
24%
-21.
52%
1999
3580
0 U
G C
ondu
ctor
s22
6,90
6
10
3,10
1
29
0,08
8
(1
86,9
87)
-82.
41%
-40.
68%
-37.
39%
-42.
96%
-40.
05%
-36.
42%
-29.
63%
-27.
45%
-27.
80%
-27.
80%
2000
3580
0 U
G C
ondu
ctor
s49
8,22
9
75
,220
246,
018
(170
,797
)-3
4.28
%-4
9.34
%-3
7.62
%-3
6.14
%-3
9.77
%-3
8.13
%-3
5.76
%-3
0.60
%-2
8.80
%-2
9.03
%20
0135
800
UG
Con
duct
ors
549,
407
116,
471
167,
686
(51,
215)
-9.3
2%-2
1.19
%-3
2.09
%-2
7.86
%-2
7.89
%-3
0.99
%-3
0.39
%-2
9.05
%-2
6.62
%-2
5.32
%20
0235
800
UG
Con
duct
ors
440,
467
90,9
04
29
7,67
0
(2
06,7
66)
-46.
94%
-26.
06%
-28.
81%
-35.
90%
-31.
99%
-31.
66%
-33.
99%
-33.
32%
-32.
08%
-29.
27%
2003
3580
0 U
G C
ondu
ctor
s26
7,63
7
7,
093
19
2,23
7
(1
85,1
44)
-69.
18%
-55.
35%
-35.
24%
-34.
97%
-40.
40%
-36.
32%
-35.
68%
-37.
59%
-36.
81%
-35.
53%
2004
3580
0 U
G C
ondu
ctor
s30
9,83
8
15
,556
86,4
01
(7
0,84
4)-2
2.86
%-4
4.33
%-4
5.46
%-3
2.79
%-3
3.15
%-3
8.03
%-3
4.72
%-3
4.27
%-3
6.03
%-3
5.40
%20
0535
800
UG
Con
duct
ors
807,
360
106,
551
229,
567
(123
,016
)-1
5.24
%-1
7.35
%-2
7.37
%-3
2.09
%-2
6.82
%-2
8.12
%-3
2.09
%-3
0.12
%-3
0.01
%-3
1.53
%20
0635
800
UG
Con
duct
ors
739,
002
75,1
19
34
2,54
1
(2
67,4
22)
-36.
19%
-25.
25%
-24.
85%
-30.
44%
-33.
27%
-29.
05%
-29.
77%
-32.
88%
-31.
20%
-31.
06%
2007
3580
0 U
G C
ondu
ctor
s1,
018,
422
28
4,94
4
82
1,91
9
(5
36,9
75)
-52.
73%
-45.
77%
-36.
16%
-34.
73%
-37.
66%
-38.
80%
-34.
88%
-34.
82%
-37.
04%
-35.
43%
2008
3580
0 U
G C
ondu
ctor
s2,
103,
923
17
0,56
6
40
9,20
9
(2
38,6
43)
-11.
34%
-24.
84%
-27.
01%
-24.
98%
-24.
84%
-27.
11%
-28.
64%
-26.
94%
-27.
48%
-29.
27%
2009
3580
0 U
G C
ondu
ctor
s87
0,78
8
13
0,96
2
35
8,27
0
(2
27,3
08)
-26.
10%
-15.
66%
-25.
12%
-26.
85%
-25.
15%
-25.
03%
-26.
96%
-28.
31%
-26.
84%
-27.
33%
2010
3580
0 U
G C
ondu
ctor
s28
2,16
7
16
,095
150,
992
(134
,897
)-4
7.81
%-3
1.42
%-1
8.45
%-2
6.61
%-2
8.02
%-2
6.25
%-2
6.08
%-2
7.88
%-2
9.11
%-2
7.64
%20
1135
800
UG
Con
duct
ors
4,04
2,43
4
196,
782
524,
199
(327
,417
)-8
.10%
-10.
69%
-13.
27%
-12.
72%
-17.
62%
-19.
13%
-18.
81%
-18.
94%
-20.
22%
-21.
31%
2012
3580
0 U
G C
ondu
ctor
s1,
074,
467
47
,010
488,
020
(441
,010
)-4
1.04
%-1
5.02
%-1
6.73
%-1
8.03
%-1
6.35
%-2
0.30
%-2
1.46
%-2
1.00
%-2
1.05
%-2
2.17
%
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 8
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
1986
3590
0 R
oads
& T
rails
1,11
6
-
-
00.
00%
19
8735
900
Roa
ds &
Tra
ils67
0
-
-
0
0.00
%0.
00%
19
8835
900
Roa
ds &
Tra
ils18
,136
-
-
00.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
1989
3590
0 R
oads
& T
rails
-
-
-
0N
A0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
1990
3590
0 R
oads
& T
rails
-
-
-
0N
AN
A0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
19
9135
900
Roa
ds &
Tra
ils-
-
-
0
NA
NA
NA
0.00
%0.
00%
0.00
%19
9235
900
Roa
ds &
Tra
ils48
2
-
5,72
8
(5,7
28)
-118
8.35
%-1
188.
35%
-118
8.35
%-1
188.
35%
-30.
77%
-29.
70%
-28.
07%
1993
3590
0 R
oads
& T
rails
-
-
-
0N
A-1
188.
35%
-118
8.35
%-1
188.
35%
-118
8.35
%-3
0.77
%-2
9.70
%-2
8.07
%
1994
3590
0 R
oads
& T
rails
-
-
-
0N
AN
A-1
188.
35%
-118
8.35
%-1
188.
35%
-118
8.35
%-3
0.77
%-2
9.70
%-2
8.07
%19
9535
900
Roa
ds &
Tra
ils-
-
-
0
NA
NA
NA
-118
8.35
%-1
188.
35%
-118
8.35
%-1
188.
35%
-30.
77%
-29.
70%
-28.
07%
1996
3590
0 R
oads
& T
rails
-
-
-
0N
AN
AN
AN
A-1
188.
35%
-118
8.35
%-1
188.
35%
-118
8.35
%-3
0.77
%-2
9.70
%19
9735
900
Roa
ds &
Tra
ils22
,565
-
2,
250
(2
,250
)-9
.97%
-9.9
7%-9
.97%
-9.9
7%-9
.97%
-34.
62%
-34.
62%
-34.
62%
-34.
62%
-19.
37%
1998
3590
0 R
oads
& T
rails
-
-
-
0N
A-9
.97%
-9.9
7%-9
.97%
-9.9
7%-9
.97%
-34.
62%
-34.
62%
-34.
62%
-34.
62%
1999
3590
0 R
oads
& T
rails
-
-
-
0N
AN
A-9
.97%
-9.9
7%-9
.97%
-9.9
7%-9
.97%
-34.
62%
-34.
62%
-34.
62%
2000
3590
0 R
oads
& T
rails
-
-
-
0N
AN
AN
A-9
.97%
-9.9
7%-9
.97%
-9.9
7%-9
.97%
-34.
62%
-34.
62%
2001
3590
0 R
oads
& T
rails
-
-
-
0N
AN
AN
AN
A-9
.97%
-9.9
7%-9
.97%
-9.9
7%-9
.97%
-34.
62%
2002
3590
0 R
oads
& T
rails
-
-
-
0N
AN
AN
AN
AN
A-9
.97%
-9.9
7%-9
.97%
-9.9
7%-9
.97%
2003
3590
0 R
oads
& T
rails
-
-
-
0N
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
A-9
.97%
-9.9
7%-9
.97%
-9.9
7%20
0435
900
Roa
ds &
Tra
ils-
-
-
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-9.9
7%-9
.97%
-9.9
7%20
0535
900
Roa
ds &
Tra
ils-
-
-
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-9.9
7%-9
.97%
2006
3590
0 R
oads
& T
rails
-
-
-
0N
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
A-9
.97%
2007
3590
0 R
oads
& T
rails
-
-
-
0N
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
A20
0835
900
Roa
ds &
Tra
ils-
-
-
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2009
3590
0 R
oads
& T
rails
-
-
-
0N
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
A20
1035
900
Roa
ds &
Tra
ils-
-
-
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2011
3590
0 R
oads
& T
rails
-
-
-
0N
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
A20
1235
900
Roa
ds &
Tra
ils27
,288
-
6,
415
(6
,415
)-2
3.51
%-2
3.51
%-2
3.51
%-2
3.51
%-2
3.51
%-2
3.51
%-2
3.51
%-2
3.51
%-2
3.51
%-2
3.51
%
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 9
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
1986
3610
0 S
truct
ures
& Im
prov
emen
ts85
,396
104
8,12
3
(8,0
19)
-9.3
9%
1987
3610
0 S
truct
ures
& Im
prov
emen
ts46
,022
-
6,
913
(6
,913
)-1
5.02
%-1
1.36
%
1988
3610
0 S
truct
ures
& Im
prov
emen
ts22
3,72
6
-
39,4
95
(3
9,49
5)-1
7.65
%-1
7.20
%-1
5.33
%19
8936
100
Stru
ctur
es &
Impr
ovem
ents
128,
887
4,54
4
24,4
92
(1
9,94
8)-1
5.48
%-1
6.86
%-1
6.65
%-1
5.37
%
19
9036
100
Stru
ctur
es &
Impr
ovem
ents
605,
079
-
11
8,65
3
(1
18,6
53)
-19.
61%
-18.
88%
-18.
60%
-18.
43%
-17.
72%
19
9136
100
Stru
ctur
es &
Impr
ovem
ents
1,19
8,85
1
3
51
5,91
2
(5
15,9
09)
-43.
03%
-35.
18%
-33.
86%
-32.
18%
-31.
82%
-30.
99%
1992
3610
0 S
truct
ures
& Im
prov
emen
ts71
4,29
8
-
391,
496
(391
,496
)-5
4.81
%-4
7.43
%-4
0.75
%-3
9.51
%-3
7.81
%-3
7.45
%-3
6.65
%
19
9336
100
Stru
ctur
es &
Impr
ovem
ents
855,
348
60,8
96
42
7,85
5
(3
66,9
59)
-42.
90%
-48.
32%
-46.
03%
-41.
29%
-40.
34%
-38.
98%
-38.
69%
-38.
04%
19
9436
100
Stru
ctur
es &
Impr
ovem
ents
1,92
7,24
3
12,6
04
16
7,83
7
(1
55,2
33)
-8.0
5%-1
8.77
%-2
6.13
%-3
0.44
%-2
9.21
%-2
8.88
%-2
8.44
%-2
8.33
%-2
8.05
%19
9536
100
Stru
ctur
es &
Impr
ovem
ents
1,20
5,14
7
-
40
8,17
9
(4
08,1
79)
-33.
87%
-17.
99%
-23.
33%
-28.
11%
-31.
14%
-30.
07%
-29.
79%
-29.
39%
-29.
30%
-29.
05%
1996
3610
0 S
truct
ures
& Im
prov
emen
ts49
4,83
8
-
74,1
13
(7
4,11
3)-1
4.98
%-2
8.37
%-1
7.58
%-2
2.41
%-2
6.86
%-2
9.89
%-2
9.00
%-2
8.76
%-2
8.42
%-2
8.34
%19
9736
100
Stru
ctur
es &
Impr
ovem
ents
1,18
4,87
0
161,
247
380,
162
(218
,915
)-1
8.48
%-1
7.45
%-2
4.31
%-1
7.80
%-2
1.59
%-2
5.30
%-2
8.11
%-2
7.48
%-2
7.29
%-2
7.04
%19
9836
100
Stru
ctur
es &
Impr
ovem
ents
2,65
5,54
1
-
53
8,21
2
(5
38,2
12)
-20.
27%
-19.
71%
-19.
17%
-22.
37%
-18.
68%
-21.
17%
-23.
82%
-26.
07%
-25.
71%
-25.
59%
1999
3610
0 S
truct
ures
& Im
prov
emen
ts2,
946,
745
-
307,
552
(307
,552
)-1
0.44
%-1
5.10
%-1
5.69
%-1
5.64
%-1
8.23
%-1
6.34
%-1
8.36
%-2
0.53
%-2
2.58
%-2
2.45
%20
0036
100
Stru
ctur
es &
Impr
ovem
ents
2,24
7,94
2
-
46
2,16
4
(4
62,1
64)
-20.
56%
-14.
82%
-16.
66%
-16.
90%
-16.
80%
-18.
72%
-17.
09%
-18.
73%
-20.
54%
-22.
28%
2001
3610
0 S
truct
ures
& Im
prov
emen
ts75
0,92
9
-
473,
464
(473
,464
)-6
3.05
%-3
1.20
%-2
0.91
%-2
0.71
%-2
0.44
%-2
0.18
%-2
1.61
%-1
9.67
%-2
1.06
%-2
2.67
%20
0236
100
Stru
ctur
es &
Impr
ovem
ents
1,86
4,89
6
-
51
8,86
7
(5
18,8
67)
-27.
82%
-37.
94%
-29.
90%
-22.
56%
-21.
98%
-21.
62%
-21.
35%
-22.
48%
-20.
66%
-21.
84%
2003
3610
0 S
truct
ures
& Im
prov
emen
ts3,
472,
039
25
,715
962,
798
(937
,083
)-2
6.99
%-2
7.28
%-3
1.69
%-2
8.69
%-2
3.92
%-2
3.23
%-2
2.85
%-2
2.60
%-2
3.41
%-2
1.83
%20
0436
100
Stru
ctur
es &
Impr
ovem
ents
8,21
6,83
8
13,6
45
1,
005,
907
(9
92,2
63)
-12.
08%
-16.
51%
-18.
06%
-20.
42%
-20.
44%
-18.
93%
-19.
09%
-19.
06%
-18.
98%
-19.
69%
2005
3610
0 S
truct
ures
& Im
prov
emen
ts1,
680,
974
20
,723
574,
059
(553
,335
)-3
2.92
%-1
5.62
%-1
8.57
%-1
9.70
%-2
1.74
%-2
1.59
%-2
0.04
%-2
0.07
%-1
9.99
%-1
9.89
%20
0636
100
Stru
ctur
es &
Impr
ovem
ents
1,52
0,77
8
48,7
13
52
5,04
7
(4
76,3
34)
-31.
32%
-32.
16%
-17.
71%
-19.
87%
-20.
76%
-22.
57%
-22.
34%
-20.
80%
-20.
74%
-20.
64%
2007
3610
0 S
truct
ures
& Im
prov
emen
ts2,
137,
042
51
,518
971,
730
(920
,212
)-4
3.06
%-3
8.18
%-3
6.52
%-2
1.70
%-2
2.78
%-2
3.28
%-2
4.80
%-2
4.36
%-2
2.71
%-2
2.48
%20
0836
100
Stru
ctur
es &
Impr
ovem
ents
2,59
8,74
8
-
97
1,98
9
(9
71,9
89)
-37.
40%
-39.
96%
-37.
86%
-36.
81%
-24.
23%
-24.
72%
-24.
99%
-26.
27%
-25.
75%
-24.
10%
2009
3610
0 S
truct
ures
& Im
prov
emen
ts1,
465,
400
22
0,38
8
1,
153,
155
(9
32,7
67)
-63.
65%
-46.
87%
-45.
56%
-42.
75%
-40.
99%
-27.
51%
-27.
42%
-27.
46%
-28.
58%
-27.
89%
2010
3610
0 S
truct
ures
& Im
prov
emen
ts6,
375,
349
36
3,65
0
1,
160,
646
(7
96,9
95)
-12.
50%
-22.
06%
-25.
88%
-28.
80%
-29.
07%
-29.
48%
-23.
52%
-23.
96%
-24.
21%
-25.
17%
2011
3610
0 S
truct
ures
& Im
prov
emen
ts6,
349,
672
30
9,09
6
2,
750,
713
(2
,441
,617
)-3
8.45
%-2
5.45
%-2
9.40
%-3
0.64
%-3
2.04
%-3
1.98
%-3
2.06
%-2
6.65
%-2
6.68
%-2
6.74
%20
1236
100
Stru
ctur
es &
Impr
ovem
ents
1,94
6,61
5
163,
163
385,
453
(222
,290
)-1
1.42
%-3
2.11
%-2
3.59
%-2
7.23
%-2
8.64
%-3
0.12
%-3
0.20
%-3
0.39
%-2
5.73
%-2
5.85
%
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 10
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
1986
3620
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t2,
936,
715
1,
053,
941
43
0,13
0
62
3,81
021
.24%
19
8736
200
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
2,25
2,08
8
982,
578
375,
325
607,
254
26.9
6%23
.73%
19
8836
200
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
813,
859
192,
558
227,
362
(34,
804)
-4.2
8%18
.67%
19.9
3%19
8936
200
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
2,60
6,42
6
1,01
5,36
8
612,
748
402,
620
15.4
5%10
.75%
17.1
9%18
.57%
1990
3620
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t2,
638,
932
59
8,25
2
1,
068,
592
(4
70,3
40)
-17.
82%
-1.2
9%-1
.69%
6.07
%10
.03%
19
9136
200
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
3,67
6,00
8
826,
110
727,
447
98,6
632.
68%
-5.8
9%0.
35%
-0.0
4%5.
03%
8.22
%19
9236
200
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
1,97
6,09
5
354,
082
453,
241
(99,
159)
-5.0
2%-0
.01%
-5.6
8%-0
.63%
-0.8
8%3.
61%
6.67
%
19
9336
200
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
2,13
4,01
7
252,
856
846,
435
(593
,579
)-2
7.82
%-1
6.85
%-7
.63%
-10.
21%
-5.0
8%-5
.03%
-0.5
6%2.
81%
19
9436
200
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
4,07
8,25
0
644,
012
1,24
6,72
9
(602
,717
)-1
4.78
%-1
9.26
%-1
5.82
%-1
0.09
%-1
1.49
%-7
.39%
-7.2
5%-3
.43%
-0.3
0%19
9536
200
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
6,37
7,09
3
1,16
7,70
2
1,43
1,33
2
(263
,630
)-4
.13%
-8.2
9%-1
1.60
%-1
0.70
%-8
.01%
-9.2
5%-6
.51%
-6.4
3%-3
.60%
-1.1
3%19
9636
200
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
6,33
7,89
1
694,
712
1,72
7,38
1
(1,0
32,6
69)
-16.
29%
-10.
20%
-11.
31%
-13.
17%
-12.
40%
-10.
14%
-10.
89%
-8.5
9%-8
.47%
-6.0
5%19
9736
200
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
4,08
8,76
4
329,
587
964,
096
(634
,508
)-1
5.52
%-1
5.99
%-1
1.49
%-1
2.13
%-1
3.59
%-1
2.91
%-1
0.91
%-1
1.49
%-9
.42%
-9.3
0%19
9836
200
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
5,03
8,57
3
305,
201
1,19
6,12
5
(890
,924
)-1
7.68
%-1
6.71
%-1
6.54
%-1
2.92
%-1
3.21
%-1
4.32
%-1
3.71
%-1
1.92
%-1
2.35
%-1
0.49
%19
9936
200
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
8,66
6,09
9
301,
660
1,93
7,13
0
(1,6
35,4
71)
-18.
87%
-18.
43%
-17.
76%
-17.
38%
-14.
61%
-14.
63%
-15.
40%
-14.
87%
-13.
34%
-13.
61%
2000
3620
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t8,
350,
700
82
6,21
5
1,
684,
686
(8
58,4
71)
-10.
28%
-14.
66%
-15.
35%
-15.
37%
-15.
55%
-13.
68%
-13.
78%
-14.
45%
-14.
05%
-12.
84%
2001
3620
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t10
,878
,952
88,7
97
1,
629,
150
(1
,540
,353
)-1
4.16
%-1
2.47
%-1
4.46
%-1
4.95
%-1
5.02
%-1
5.20
%-1
3.78
%-1
3.86
%-1
4.39
%-1
4.07
%20
0236
200
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
7,91
3,05
9
200,
115
1,99
1,77
0
(1,7
91,6
55)
-22.
64%
-17.
73%
-15.
44%
-16.
27%
-16.
44%
-16.
36%
-16.
35%
-15.
00%
-14.
99%
-15.
41%
2003
3620
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t11
,851
,157
716,
639
3,06
5,03
3
(2,3
48,3
94)
-19.
82%
-20.
95%
-18.
54%
-16.
77%
-17.
15%
-17.
20%
-17.
08%
-17.
00%
-15.
82%
-15.
76%
2004
3620
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t9,
659,
572
19
0,96
7
2,
681,
590
(2
,490
,623
)-2
5.78
%-2
2.50
%-2
2.54
%-2
0.27
%-1
8.56
%-1
8.61
%-1
8.53
%-1
8.35
%-1
8.17
%-1
7.04
%20
0536
200
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
10,0
96,4
97
72
8,51
5
3,
204,
123
(2
,475
,609
)-2
4.52
%-2
5.14
%-2
3.14
%-2
3.04
%-2
1.12
%-1
9.58
%-1
9.49
%-1
9.37
%-1
9.16
%-1
8.94
%20
0636
200
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
7,34
0,72
8
292,
757
3,30
7,77
1
(3,0
15,0
14)
-41.
07%
-31.
49%
-29.
45%
-26.
52%
-25.
87%
-23.
66%
-21.
97%
-21.
61%
-21.
36%
-21.
08%
2007
3620
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t8,
894,
802
25
6,80
5
4,
354,
474
(4
,097
,669
)-4
6.07
%-4
3.81
%-3
6.41
%-3
3.56
%-3
0.16
%-2
9.09
%-2
6.65
%-2
4.83
%-2
4.21
%-2
3.84
%20
0836
200
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
7,96
2,59
0
43,5
55
3,
407,
823
(3
,364
,268
)-4
2.25
%-4
4.27
%-4
3.30
%-3
7.77
%-3
5.13
%-3
1.88
%-3
0.73
%-2
8.32
%-2
6.50
%-2
5.78
%20
0936
200
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
5,49
9,95
5
833,
334
5,16
9,06
8
(4,3
35,7
35)
-78.
83%
-57.
20%
-52.
77%
-49.
88%
-43.
44%
-39.
99%
-36.
09%
-34.
56%
-31.
79%
-29.
76%
2010
3620
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t8,
430,
001
35
5,23
7
6,
903,
970
(6
,548
,733
)-7
7.68
%-7
8.14
%-6
5.08
%-5
9.59
%-5
6.03
%-4
9.43
%-4
5.48
%-4
1.12
%-3
9.24
%-3
6.16
%20
1136
200
Sta
tion
Equ
ipm
ent
9,46
8,08
3
460,
898
5,98
0,49
8
(5,5
19,5
99)
-58.
30%
-67.
43%
-70.
11%
-63.
04%
-59.
29%
-56.
48%
-50.
88%
-47.
28%
-43.
17%
-41.
31%
2012
3620
0 S
tatio
n E
quip
men
t10
,518
,014
377,
680
4,80
2,17
6
(4,4
24,4
96)
-42.
07%
-49.
76%
-58.
04%
-61.
41%
-57.
77%
-55.
72%
-53.
87%
-49.
52%
-46.
58%
-43.
04%
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 11
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
1986
3640
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
3,61
7,88
8
1,19
5,58
7
5,46
0,72
9
(4,2
65,1
42)
-117
.89%
19
8736
400
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s4,
483,
625
1,
184,
575
6,
788,
552
(5
,603
,976
)-1
24.9
9%-1
21.8
2%
1988
3640
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
4,51
1,76
7
1,17
6,06
2
5,80
0,75
4
(4,6
24,6
92)
-102
.50%
-113
.71%
-114
.91%
1989
3640
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
4,98
0,18
9
1,70
1,47
0
7,39
3,14
1
(5,6
91,6
71)
-114
.29%
-108
.69%
-113
.92%
-114
.73%
1990
3640
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
4,48
8,83
1
1,51
0,85
9
5,83
7,41
2
(4,3
26,5
53)
-96.
38%
-105
.80%
-104
.74%
-109
.65%
-111
.00%
19
9136
400
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s5,
170,
171
1,
531,
005
7,
196,
967
(5
,665
,962
)-1
09.5
9%-1
03.4
5%-1
07.1
4%-1
06.0
5%-1
09.6
4%-1
10.7
3%19
9236
400
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s4,
651,
525
1,
350,
378
6,
463,
080
(5
,112
,702
)-1
09.9
1%-1
09.7
4%-1
05.5
5%-1
07.8
1%-1
06.8
0%-1
09.6
8%-1
10.6
2%
19
9336
400
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s4,
272,
313
1,
190,
943
5,
888,
423
(4
,697
,479
)-1
09.9
5%-1
09.9
3%-1
09.8
1%-1
06.5
6%-1
08.2
0%-1
07.2
8%-1
09.7
2%-1
10.5
4%
1994
3640
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
4,31
1,95
7
1,13
5,99
9
6,19
0,33
8
(5,0
54,3
40)
-117
.22%
-113
.60%
-112
.31%
-111
.54%
-108
.57%
-109
.59%
-108
.60%
-110
.60%
-111
.25%
1995
3640
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
4,66
9,59
3
1,46
0,64
7
8,53
4,15
6
(7,0
73,5
09)
-151
.48%
-135
.03%
-126
.95%
-122
.52%
-119
.62%
-115
.84%
-115
.60%
-114
.01%
-115
.19%
-115
.41%
1996
3640
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
3,37
2,60
2
1,17
8,89
7
5,53
0,47
9
(4,3
51,5
82)
-129
.03%
-142
.06%
-133
.39%
-127
.37%
-123
.55%
-120
.82%
-117
.28%
-116
.86%
-115
.26%
-116
.23%
1997
3640
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
4,38
1,68
3
1,16
9,95
6
10,2
57,2
05
(9
,087
,249
)-2
07.3
9%-1
73.3
1%-1
65.1
0%-1
52.7
7%-1
44.0
6%-1
37.8
7%-1
33.1
3%-1
28.4
6%-1
26.7
1%-1
24.2
7%19
9836
400
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s4,
633,
390
1,
557,
269
14
,198
,076
(12,
640,
807)
-272
.82%
-241
.02%
-210
.53%
-194
.36%
-178
.80%
-167
.33%
-158
.51%
-151
.38%
-145
.20%
-141
.77%
1999
3640
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
5,69
3,97
2
1,78
5,60
9
12,4
63,6
11
(1
0,67
8,00
2)-1
87.5
3%-2
25.8
0%-2
20.3
1%-2
03.2
9%-1
92.6
5%-1
80.6
3%-1
71.0
0%-1
63.1
0%-1
56.3
8%-1
50.4
8%20
0036
400
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s7,
522,
163
1,
747,
873
24
,132
,404
(22,
384,
531)
-297
.58%
-250
.17%
-256
.05%
-246
.46%
-230
.99%
-218
.73%
-206
.07%
-195
.50%
-186
.35%
-178
.20%
2001
3640
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
5,36
5,44
2
2,08
1,64
6
18,9
89,6
68
(1
6,90
8,02
2)-3
15.1
3%-3
04.8
9%-2
68.9
3%-2
69.7
0%-2
59.8
1%-2
45.5
7%-2
33.2
4%-2
20.7
2%-2
10.0
2%-2
00.4
9%20
0236
400
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s6,
092,
762
2,
206,
522
18
,730
,233
(16,
523,
711)
-271
.20%
-291
.77%
-294
.07%
-269
.49%
-270
.01%
-261
.87%
-249
.78%
-238
.78%
-227
.40%
-217
.42%
2003
3640
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
9,21
1,05
0
3,70
5,96
6
34,7
01,9
82
(3
0,99
6,01
6)-3
36.5
1%-3
10.5
1%-3
11.7
1%-3
07.9
4%-2
87.7
1%-2
85.9
2%-2
77.9
0%-2
67.0
5%-2
56.4
5%-2
45.5
9%20
0436
400
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s14
,367
,311
7,00
4,16
8
41,6
35,2
74
(3
4,63
1,10
6)-2
41.0
4%-2
78.3
4%-2
76.8
7%-2
82.7
3%-2
85.3
5%-2
73.8
1%-2
73.7
2%-2
68.6
5%-2
60.8
8%-2
53.0
6%20
0536
400
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s13
,348
,519
4,69
8,57
1
56,7
59,6
63
(5
2,06
1,09
2)-3
90.0
1%-3
12.7
9%-3
18.7
1%-3
11.9
8%-3
12.3
3%-3
10.3
4%-2
98.9
9%-2
97.1
6%-2
91.5
9%-2
84.1
8%20
0636
400
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s14
,606
,903
5,33
2,09
8
57,7
32,1
54
(5
2,40
0,05
6)-3
58.7
3%-3
73.6
7%-3
28.6
5%-3
30.0
5%-3
23.8
3%-3
23.0
9%-3
20.3
7%-3
10.4
4%-3
08.2
9%-3
03.1
0%20
0736
400
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s13
,499
,183
5,91
5,36
7
65,9
49,8
84
(6
0,03
4,51
6)-4
44.7
3%-4
00.0
4%-3
96.8
1%-3
56.7
2%-3
53.8
6%-3
46.7
8%-3
44.5
6%-3
40.3
5%-3
30.6
5%-3
27.8
1%20
0836
400
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s4,
973,
552
2,
619,
074
15
,630
,992
(13,
011,
918)
-261
.62%
-395
.43%
-379
.23%
-382
.33%
-348
.94%
-347
.30%
-341
.21%
-339
.49%
-335
.95%
-327
.02%
2009
3640
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
4,56
2,11
9
2,11
9,60
5
28,2
57,5
13
(2
6,13
7,90
8)-5
72.9
3%-4
10.5
6%-4
30.5
8%-4
02.7
0%-3
99.3
8%-3
64.5
7%-3
61.1
1%-3
54.3
2%-3
51.8
7%-3
47.5
1%20
1036
400
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s6,
046,
422
1,
025,
149
39
,746
,238
(38,
721,
089)
-640
.40%
-611
.38%
-499
.75%
-474
.21%
-435
.60%
-424
.93%
-387
.93%
-382
.05%
-374
.27%
-370
.82%
2011
3640
0 P
oles
& F
ixtu
res
7,22
6,61
7
1,64
4,72
7
47,0
21,3
85
(4
5,37
6,65
7)-6
27.9
1%-6
33.6
0%-6
18.0
8%-5
40.3
5%-5
04.8
0%-4
62.9
0%-4
47.7
6%-4
09.9
9%-4
02.2
8%-3
93.7
8%20
1236
400
Pol
es &
Fix
ture
s7,
872,
541
3,
454,
097
45
,429
,955
(41,
975,
858)
-533
.19%
-578
.53%
-596
.22%
-592
.09%
-538
.52%
-509
.86%
-472
.31%
-457
.08%
-421
.20%
-413
.05%
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 12
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
1986
3650
0 O
verh
ead
Con
duct
or4,
391,
457
1,
700,
891
7,
596,
745
(5
,895
,854
)-1
34.2
6%
1987
3650
0 O
verh
ead
Con
duct
or4,
805,
159
2,
252,
160
8,
972,
671
(6
,720
,512
)-1
39.8
6%-1
37.1
8%
1988
3650
0 O
verh
ead
Con
duct
or4,
428,
282
2,
116,
153
7,
421,
474
(5
,305
,321
)-1
19.8
1%-1
30.2
4%-1
31.5
4%19
8936
500
Ove
rhea
d C
ondu
ctor
5,54
4,70
2
3,53
3,34
8
9,16
6,96
3
(5,6
33,6
15)
-101
.60%
-109
.69%
-119
.50%
-122
.88%
1990
3650
0 O
verh
ead
Con
duct
or4,
848,
583
2,
219,
819
6,
726,
065
(4
,506
,246
)-9
2.94
%-9
7.56
%-1
04.2
1%-1
12.9
4%-1
16.8
3%
1991
3650
0 O
verh
ead
Con
duct
or5,
835,
486
2,
633,
231
8,
051,
102
(5
,417
,871
)-9
2.84
%-9
2.89
%-9
5.87
%-1
01.0
0%-1
08.3
3%-1
12.1
5%19
9236
500
Ove
rhea
d C
ondu
ctor
6,04
2,26
9
2,01
1,75
3
8,00
6,24
0
(5,9
94,4
87)
-99.
21%
-96.
08%
-95.
17%
-96.
77%
-100
.59%
-106
.58%
-109
.97%
1993
3650
0 O
verh
ead
Con
duct
or4,
212,
814
1,
545,
958
5,
717,
403
(4
,171
,445
)-9
9.02
%-9
9.13
%-9
6.85
%-9
5.94
%-9
7.13
%-1
00.3
8%-1
05.6
9%-1
08.8
2%
1994
3650
0 O
verh
ead
Con
duct
or4,
776,
241
1,
260,
883
5,
617,
313
(4
,356
,429
)-9
1.21
%-9
4.87
%-9
6.61
%-9
5.56
%-9
5.07
%-9
6.23
%-9
9.15
%-1
03.9
8%-1
06.9
4%19
9536
500
Ove
rhea
d C
ondu
ctor
5,12
7,05
1
1,63
4,96
8
7,48
4,69
7
(5,8
49,7
29)
-114
.10%
-103
.06%
-101
.85%
-101
.06%
-99.
22%
-98.
23%
-98.
74%
-101
.03%
-105
.12%
-107
.68%
1996
3650
0 O
verh
ead
Con
duct
or3,
397,
644
1,
086,
232
4,
239,
171
(3
,152
,939
)-9
2.80
%-1
05.6
1%-1
00.4
4%-1
00.1
0%-9
9.87
%-9
8.47
%-9
7.69
%-9
8.24
%-1
00.4
0%-1
04.2
6%19
9736
500
Ove
rhea
d C
ondu
ctor
4,22
2,74
3
1,00
2,91
1
5,39
3,04
8
(4,3
90,1
37)
-103
.96%
-98.
99%
-105
.06%
-101
.29%
-100
.85%
-100
.49%
-99.
16%
-98.
38%
-98.
79%
-100
.71%
1998
3650
0 O
verh
ead
Con
duct
or3,
253,
038
1,
207,
796
5,
481,
157
(4
,273
,361
)-1
31.3
7%-1
15.8
9%-1
08.6
7%-1
10.4
1%-1
06.0
0%-1
04.8
2%-1
03.7
3%-1
02.0
0%-1
00.9
5%-1
01.0
3%19
9936
500
Ove
rhea
d C
ondu
ctor
4,18
8,85
1
1,08
7,77
6
6,31
7,54
6
(5,2
29,7
70)
-124
.85%
-127
.70%
-119
.11%
-113
.17%
-113
.41%
-109
.16%
-107
.70%
-106
.24%
-104
.34%
-103
.13%
2000
3650
0 O
verh
ead
Con
duct
or7,
183,
370
1,
476,
125
9,
143,
762
(7
,667
,637
)-1
06.7
4%-1
13.4
1%-1
17.4
0%-1
14.3
9%-1
11.1
0%-1
11.6
6%-1
08.6
2%-1
07.5
1%-1
06.3
2%-1
04.6
9%20
0136
500
Ove
rhea
d C
ondu
ctor
5,95
8,38
4
1,23
5,13
6
6,21
9,73
9
(4,9
84,6
03)
-83.
66%
-96.
28%
-103
.18%
-107
.64%
-107
.01%
-105
.30%
-106
.65%
-104
.72%
-104
.15%
-103
.53%
2002
3650
0 O
verh
ead
Con
duct
or6,
831,
264
1,
094,
382
6,
704,
583
(5
,610
,201
)-8
2.13
%-8
2.84
%-9
1.44
%-9
7.23
%-1
01.2
8%-1
01.6
4%-1
00.7
8%-1
02.4
8%-1
01.2
8%-1
01.0
9%20
0336
500
Ove
rhea
d C
ondu
ctor
9,27
0,96
6
1,22
5,71
9
10,8
86,4
06
(9
,660
,687
)-1
04.2
0%-9
4.84
%-9
1.82
%-9
5.48
%-9
9.16
%-1
02.0
2%-1
02.2
2%-1
01.5
0%-1
02.8
0%-1
01.7
8%20
0436
500
Ove
rhea
d C
ondu
ctor
10,2
62,4
32
92
7,75
8
14
,793
,605
(13,
865,
847)
-135
.11%
-120
.44%
-110
.51%
-105
.56%
-105
.78%
-107
.61%
-109
.25%
-108
.82%
-107
.82%
-108
.36%
2005
3650
0 O
verh
ead
Con
duct
or10
,522
,955
1,74
9,87
4
18,1
13,3
40
(1
6,36
3,46
6)-1
55.5
0%-1
45.4
4%-1
32.7
2%-1
23.3
5%-1
17.8
3%-1
16.2
4%-1
16.9
0%-1
17.7
2%-1
16.7
8%-1
15.5
3%20
0636
500
Ove
rhea
d C
ondu
ctor
12,4
12,5
27
2,
418,
062
25
,331
,453
(22,
913,
392)
-184
.60%
-171
.25%
-160
.08%
-147
.88%
-138
.77%
-132
.83%
-129
.83%
-129
.51%
-129
.60%
-128
.14%
2007
3650
0 O
verh
ead
Con
duct
or15
,717
,807
2,41
8,79
9
28,4
92,6
41
(2
6,07
3,84
3)-1
65.8
9%-1
74.1
4%-1
69.0
7%-1
61.9
4%-1
52.7
4%-1
45.3
3%-1
40.1
5%-1
37.0
8%-1
36.4
6%-1
36.2
6%20
0836
500
Ove
rhea
d C
ondu
ctor
6,59
2,14
5
163,
871
10,7
33,5
97
(1
0,56
9,72
6)-1
60.3
4%-1
64.2
5%-1
71.5
2%-1
67.8
0%-1
61.7
5%-1
53.5
2%-1
46.7
1%-1
41.8
6%-1
38.8
9%-1
38.2
3%20
0936
500
Ove
rhea
d C
ondu
ctor
4,90
1,90
1
892,
530
18,1
21,9
04
(1
7,22
9,37
4)-3
51.4
8%-2
41.8
6%-1
97.9
8%-1
93.7
9%-1
85.7
5%-1
77.1
5%-1
67.4
4%-1
59.8
3%-1
54.3
2%-1
50.5
1%20
1036
500
Ove
rhea
d C
ondu
ctor
6,21
1,61
5
396,
640
23,9
73,5
25
(2
3,57
6,88
5)-3
79.5
6%-3
67.1
8%-2
90.1
7%-2
31.7
2%-2
18.9
6%-2
07.1
1%-1
96.0
2%-1
84.8
1%-1
76.3
3%-1
70.1
0%20
1136
500
Ove
rhea
d C
ondu
ctor
9,29
5,85
0
508,
896
27,9
18,5
14
(2
7,40
9,61
8)-2
94.8
6%-3
28.7
9%-3
34.2
4%-2
91.7
8%-2
45.4
6%-2
31.7
6%-2
19.5
4%-2
08.1
2%-1
96.8
1%-1
88.3
0%20
1236
500
Ove
rhea
d C
ondu
ctor
8,91
5,07
4
372,
623
21,2
47,6
76
(2
0,87
5,05
3)-2
34.1
5%-2
65.1
4%-2
94.2
4%-3
03.8
1%-2
77.4
8%-2
43.5
1%-2
32.0
9%-2
21.2
8%-2
10.8
6%-2
00.3
5%
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 13
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
1986
3660
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
it47
7,79
8
74
,356
155,
193
(80,
837)
-16.
92%
19
8736
600
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duit
386,
243
63,3
99
16
9,23
9
(1
05,8
40)
-27.
40%
-21.
61%
19
8836
600
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duit
526,
244
59,2
99
17
2,61
8
(1
13,3
19)
-21.
53%
-24.
02%
-21.
58%
1989
3660
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
it78
6,27
8
97
,375
224,
896
(127
,521
)-1
6.22
%-1
8.35
%-2
0.41
%-1
9.64
%
19
9036
600
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duit
835,
966
50,1
76
21
6,35
6
(1
66,1
80)
-19.
88%
-18.
10%
-18.
94%
-20.
23%
-19.
71%
19
9136
600
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duit
1,22
4,84
0
107,
632
373,
554
(265
,922
)-2
1.71
%-2
0.97
%-1
9.66
%-1
9.95
%-2
0.71
%-2
0.29
%19
9236
600
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duit
821,
659
80,2
97
25
5,65
2
(1
75,3
56)
-21.
34%
-21.
56%
-21.
07%
-20.
03%
-20.
22%
-20.
83%
-20.
46%
1993
3660
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
it70
6,04
6
67
,031
312,
470
(245
,439
)-3
4.76
%-2
7.54
%-2
4.95
%-2
3.77
%-2
2.41
%-2
2.32
%-2
2.69
%-2
2.21
%
1994
3660
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
it60
1,48
8
51
,511
236,
687
(185
,177
)-3
0.79
%-3
2.93
%-2
8.46
%-2
6.00
%-2
4.78
%-2
3.42
%-2
3.24
%-2
3.52
%-2
3.02
%19
9536
600
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duit
667,
942
57,7
72
21
8,88
2
(1
61,1
10)
-24.
12%
-27.
28%
-29.
95%
-27.
42%
-25.
68%
-24.
69%
-23.
51%
-23.
34%
-23.
58%
-23.
12%
1996
3660
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
it65
2,94
8
39
,859
163,
811
(123
,952
)-1
8.98
%-2
1.58
%-2
4.46
%-2
7.23
%-2
5.83
%-2
4.75
%-2
4.01
%-2
3.04
%-2
2.92
%-2
3.16
%19
9736
600
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duit
549,
038
52,3
95
16
6,38
6
(1
13,9
90)
-20.
76%
-19.
80%
-21.
34%
-23.
64%
-26.
11%
-25.
13%
-24.
33%
-23.
72%
-22.
85%
-22.
76%
1998
3660
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
it86
5,46
3
81
,759
273,
985
(192
,226
)-2
2.21
%-2
1.65
%-2
0.81
%-2
1.62
%-2
3.27
%-2
5.28
%-2
4.61
%-2
4.03
%-2
3.53
%-2
2.78
%19
9936
600
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duit
846,
117
70,9
35
32
5,89
2
(2
54,9
57)
-30.
13%
-26.
13%
-24.
82%
-23.
52%
-23.
63%
-24.
66%
-26.
12%
-25.
43%
-24.
77%
-24.
25%
2000
3660
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
it1,
078,
716
67
,480
652,
421
(584
,942
)-5
4.23
%-4
3.63
%-3
6.99
%-3
4.32
%-3
1.81
%-3
0.71
%-3
0.72
%-3
1.20
%-3
0.00
%-2
8.74
%20
0136
600
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duit
1,21
6,16
6
82,7
98
53
5,10
5
(4
52,3
06)
-37.
19%
-45.
20%
-41.
14%
-37.
05%
-35.
09%
-33.
07%
-32.
05%
-31.
93%
-32.
21%
-31.
10%
2002
3660
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
it1,
061,
800
66
,494
491,
375
(424
,880
)-4
0.02
%-3
8.51
%-4
3.56
%-4
0.86
%-3
7.67
%-3
6.02
%-3
4.25
%-3
3.27
%-3
3.07
%-3
3.22
%20
0336
600
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duit
1,32
8,93
0
65,1
02
94
1,39
2
(8
76,2
90)
-65.
94%
-54.
43%
-48.
61%
-49.
91%
-46.
88%
-43.
54%
-41.
74%
-39.
79%
-38.
52%
-38.
00%
2004
3660
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
it1,
595,
234
95
,005
1,05
3,81
6
(958
,811
)-6
0.10
%-6
2.76
%-5
6.70
%-5
2.14
%-5
2.50
%-4
9.84
%-4
6.85
%-4
5.17
%-4
3.31
%-4
2.01
%20
0536
600
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duit
1,81
0,55
0
141,
870
1,54
2,40
9
(1,4
00,5
39)
-77.
35%
-69.
27%
-68.
34%
-63.
15%
-58.
65%
-58.
06%
-55.
42%
-52.
48%
-50.
80%
-48.
91%
2006
3660
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
it1,
801,
730
20
3,88
5
1,
606,
462
(1
,402
,576
)-7
7.85
%-7
7.60
%-7
2.24
%-7
0.96
%-6
6.64
%-6
2.57
%-6
1.66
%-5
9.18
%-5
6.42
%-5
4.81
%20
0736
600
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duit
2,45
2,72
9
262,
160
2,74
9,82
4
(2,4
87,6
64)
-101
.42%
-91.
44%
-87.
23%
-81.
58%
-79.
27%
-75.
12%
-71.
03%
-69.
56%
-67.
03%
-64.
27%
2008
3660
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
it72
4,98
4
11
1,40
1
50
6,00
6
(3
94,6
05)
-54.
43%
-90.
70%
-86.
05%
-83.
73%
-79.
24%
-77.
42%
-73.
73%
-70.
03%
-68.
72%
-66.
38%
2009
3660
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
it1,
313,
670
20
5,60
5
2,
948,
062
(2
,742
,457
)-2
08.7
6%-1
53.8
8%-1
25.2
3%-1
11.6
7%-1
04.0
0%-9
6.78
%-9
3.06
%-8
8.40
%-8
3.72
%-8
1.51
%20
1036
600
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duit
3,44
0,48
0
199,
519
3,45
9,77
1
(3,2
60,2
51)
-94.
76%
-126
.26%
-116
.76%
-112
.02%
-105
.69%
-101
.25%
-96.
25%
-93.
47%
-89.
81%
-85.
99%
2011
3660
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
it6,
131,
041
31
9,91
4
5,
635,
971
(5
,316
,057
)-8
6.71
%-8
9.60
%-1
03.9
8%-1
00.8
9%-1
00.9
8%-9
8.35
%-9
6.20
%-9
3.22
%-9
1.46
%-8
8.93
%20
1236
600
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duit
2,63
9,50
1
122,
408
6,19
0,03
5
(6,0
67,6
26)
-229
.88%
-129
.79%
-119
.92%
-128
.55%
-124
.78%
-121
.35%
-117
.12%
-113
.57%
-109
.68%
-107
.18%
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 14
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
1986
3670
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
ctor
& D
evic
es8,
353,
253
1,
719,
043
4,
042,
861
(2
,323
,819
)-2
7.82
%19
8736
700
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duct
or &
Dev
ice s
7,67
1,94
4
1,38
2,79
8
4,09
5,29
4
(2,7
12,4
96)
-35.
36%
-31.
43%
1988
3670
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
ctor
& D
evic
es8,
043,
247
1,
562,
947
4,
481,
773
(2
,918
,826
)-3
6.29
%-3
5.83
%-3
3.05
%
1989
3670
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
ctor
& D
evic
es11
,931
,417
2,70
2,83
3
6,74
6,06
1
(4,0
43,2
28)
-33.
89%
-34.
85%
-34.
99%
-33.
33%
1990
3670
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
ctor
& D
evic
es10
,841
,864
1,99
0,10
8
6,36
7,07
8
(4,3
76,9
70)
-40.
37%
-36.
97%
-36.
80%
-36.
51%
-34.
96%
1991
3670
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
ctor
& D
evic
es16
,410
,745
1,89
6,25
2
9,34
8,69
9
(7,4
52,4
47)
-45.
41%
-43.
41%
-40.
51%
-39.
79%
-39.
17%
-37.
67%
19
9236
700
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duct
or &
Dev
ice s
13,9
24,6
75
1,
792,
664
8,
946,
516
(7
,153
,852
)-5
1.38
%-4
8.15
%-4
6.10
%-4
3.36
%-4
2.43
%-4
1.64
%-4
0.14
%
19
9336
700
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duct
or &
Dev
ices
14,6
21,9
50
1,
356,
409
8,
067,
483
(6
,711
,074
)-4
5.90
%-4
8.57
%-4
7.42
%-4
6.05
%-4
3.91
%-4
3.10
%-4
2.39
%-4
1.06
%
1994
3670
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
ctor
& D
evic
es9,
819,
775
1,
073,
519
6,
792,
171
(5
,718
,652
)-5
8.24
%-5
0.85
%-5
1.04
%-4
9.36
%-4
7.87
%-4
5.72
%-4
4.83
%-4
4.05
%-4
2.72
%19
9536
700
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duct
or &
Dev
ices
8,45
9,98
2
1,21
1,63
2
6,32
5,04
6
(5,1
13,4
13)
-60.
44%
-59.
26%
-53.
32%
-52.
74%
-50.
84%
-49.
31%
-47.
17%
-46.
24%
-45.
42%
-44.
08%
1996
3670
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
ctor
& D
evic
es7,
737,
082
97
7,58
0
4,
909,
532
(3
,931
,952
)-5
0.82
%-5
5.85
%-5
6.75
%-5
2.84
%-5
2.47
%-5
0.84
%-4
9.45
%-4
7.47
%-4
6.59
%-4
5.80
%19
9736
700
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duct
or &
Dev
ice s
8,26
0,82
8
1,08
6,01
7
6,72
7,80
5
(5,6
41,7
88)
-68.
30%
-59.
84%
-60.
05%
-59.
53%
-55.
45%
-54.
55%
-52.
66%
-51.
18%
-49.
16%
-48.
22%
1998
3670
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
ctor
& D
evic
e s10
,398
,031
2,13
5,47
9
8,22
0,26
4
(6,0
84,7
85)
-58.
52%
-62.
85%
-59.
32%
-59.
59%
-59.
30%
-55.
99%
-55.
11%
-53.
34%
-51.
94%
-50.
02%
1999
3670
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
ctor
& D
evic
es11
,105
,827
1,77
2,34
7
8,30
3,12
1
(6,5
30,7
74)
-58.
80%
-58.
67%
-61.
34%
-59.
17%
-59.
40%
-59.
20%
-56.
44%
-55.
60%
-53.
94%
-52.
62%
2000
3670
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
ctor
& D
evic
es14
,262
,977
2,14
3,18
0
13,8
13,9
84
(1
1,67
0,80
4)-8
1.83
%-7
1.75
%-6
7.90
%-6
7.98
%-6
5.41
%-6
4.71
%-6
3.81
%-6
0.71
%-5
9.39
%-5
7.40
%20
0136
700
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duct
or &
Dev
ices
14,1
26,7
54
1,
538,
316
11
,084
,569
(9,5
46,2
53)
-67.
58%
-74.
73%
-70.
26%
-67.
81%
-67.
88%
-65.
88%
-65.
26%
-64.
44%
-61.
69%
-60.
42%
2002
3670
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
ctor
& D
evic
es16
,425
,628
1,64
3,50
0
13,1
62,1
40
(1
1,51
8,64
0)-7
0.13
%-6
8.95
%-7
3.05
%-7
0.22
%-6
8.38
%-6
8.37
%-6
6.72
%-6
6.14
%-6
5.37
%-6
2.90
%20
0336
700
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duct
or &
Dev
ice s
17,1
38,1
53
1,
646,
483
17
,189
,343
(15,
542,
860)
-90.
69%
-80.
63%
-76.
76%
-77.
93%
-75.
02%
-72.
96%
-72.
54%
-70.
85%
-70.
04%
-69.
05%
2004
3670
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
ctor
& D
evic
es18
,149
,193
1,46
3,29
8
20,0
36,8
41
(1
8,57
3,54
3)-1
02.3
4%-9
6.68
%-8
8.25
%-8
3.81
%-8
3.46
%-8
0.46
%-7
8.21
%-7
7.47
%-7
5.71
%-7
4.69
%20
0536
700
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duct
or &
Dev
ice s
23,2
22,7
23
2,
797,
077
29
,642
,742
(26,
845,
665)
-115
.60%
-109
.78%
-104
.19%
-96.
72%
-92.
10%
-90.
68%
-87.
59%
-85.
17%
-84.
12%
-82.
29%
2006
3670
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
ctor
& D
evic
es26
,122
,079
4,24
9,03
6
34,4
73,2
21
(3
0,22
4,18
4)-1
15.7
0%-1
15.6
6%-1
12.0
7%-1
07.7
4%-1
01.6
3%-9
7.45
%-9
5.73
%-9
2.81
%-9
0.45
%-8
9.30
%20
0736
700
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duct
or &
Dev
ice s
36,8
32,3
43
5,
535,
153
57
,634
,906
(52,
099,
754)
-141
.45%
-130
.77%
-126
.68%
-122
.45%
-117
.97%
-112
.27%
-108
.11%
-105
.86%
-102
.91%
-100
.45%
2008
3670
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
ctor
& D
evic
es13
,951
,291
794,
902
21,6
21,1
65
(2
0,82
6,26
3)-1
49.2
8%-1
43.6
0%-1
34.1
3%-1
29.8
3%-1
25.6
1%-1
21.1
9%-1
15.6
7%-1
11.5
7%-1
09.2
2%-1
06.2
9%20
0936
700
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duct
or &
Dev
ices
24,0
98,7
56
4,
546,
964
46
,615
,251
(42,
068,
287)
-174
.57%
-165
.29%
-153
.57%
-143
.77%
-138
.51%
-133
.90%
-129
.26%
-123
.73%
-119
.56%
-116
.93%
2010
3670
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
ctor
& D
evic
e s25
,031
,561
1,45
8,43
2
48,0
37,9
89
(4
6,57
9,55
7)-1
86.0
8%-1
80.4
3%-1
73.5
4%-1
61.7
1%-1
52.1
8%-1
46.4
9%-1
41.7
0%-1
36.9
6%-1
31.5
0%-1
27.3
0%20
1136
700
Und
ergr
ound
Con
duct
or &
Dev
ices
36,3
47,3
92
1,
902,
412
61
,400
,315
(59,
497,
903)
-163
.69%
-172
.82%
-173
.32%
-169
.94%
-162
.24%
-154
.75%
-149
.86%
-145
.62%
-141
.36%
-136
.43%
2012
3670
0 U
nder
grou
nd C
ondu
ctor
& D
evic
e s38
,580
,724
1,78
3,50
6
56,7
98,8
50
(5
5,01
5,34
4)-1
42.6
0%-1
52.8
3%-1
61.1
6%-1
63.7
6%-1
62.3
0%-1
57.9
1%-1
52.4
2%-1
48.6
1%-1
45.1
4%-1
41.5
5%
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 15
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
1986
3680
0 Li
ne T
rans
form
ers
12,4
99,4
65
2,
305,
557
1,
764,
311
54
1,24
64.
33%
19
8736
800
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s14
,879
,106
2,19
2,21
3
1,93
9,73
6
252,
476
1.70
%2.
90%
1988
3680
0 Li
ne T
rans
form
ers
13,2
16,8
12
2,
229,
808
2,
108,
611
12
1,19
70.
92%
1.33
%2.
25%
19
8936
800
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s14
,025
,974
4,84
1,23
8
2,24
3,32
2
2,59
7,91
618
.52%
9.98
%7.
05%
6.43
%19
9036
800
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s14
,472
,571
3,06
3,84
0
2,10
4,79
8
959,
041
6.63
%12
.48%
8.82
%6.
95%
6.47
%19
9136
800
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s17
,861
,861
4,21
1,20
0
2,46
3,80
9
1,74
7,39
19.
78%
8.37
%11
.44%
9.11
%7.
63%
7.15
%
19
9236
800
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s17
,628
,562
3,63
6,46
8
2,69
2,67
7
943,
791
5.35
%7.
58%
7.31
%9.
76%
8.25
%7.
19%
6.85
%
19
9336
800
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s15
,208
,707
2,79
6,69
2
2,47
2,78
6
323,
906
2.13
%3.
86%
5.95
%6.
10%
8.30
%7.
24%
6.47
%6.
25%
19
9436
800
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s16
,705
,282
2,45
3,06
7
1,77
7,36
3
675,
704
4.04
%3.
13%
3.92
%5.
48%
5.68
%7.
56%
6.75
%6.
15%
5.98
%19
9536
800
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s11
,459
,804
3,01
4,30
5
2,47
2,55
6
541,
748
4.73
%4.
32%
3.55
%4.
07%
5.37
%5.
56%
7.26
%6.
56%
6.03
%5.
88%
1996
3680
0 Li
ne T
rans
form
ers
11,8
98,8
59
1,
841,
898
1,
836,
336
5,
562
0.05
%2.
34%
3.05
%2.
80%
3.42
%4.
67%
4.94
%6.
54%
5.98
%5.
54%
1997
3680
0 Li
ne T
rans
form
ers
13,8
93,2
42
94
9,39
6
2,
496,
024
(1
,546
,628
)-1
1.13
%-5
.97%
-2.6
8%-0
.60%
0.00
%1.
09%
2.57
%3.
06%
4.69
%4.
35%
1998
3680
0 Li
ne T
rans
form
ers
17,7
79,0
42
1,
969,
363
3,
047,
810
(1
,078
,446
)-6
.07%
-8.2
9%-6
.01%
-3.7
8%-1
.95%
-1.2
4%-0
.13%
1.32
%1.
88%
3.43
%19
9936
800
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s16
,622
,447
1,33
8,24
4
3,07
9,40
3
(1,7
41,1
58)
-10.
47%
-8.2
0%-9
.04%
-7.2
4%-5
.33%
-3.5
6%-2
.72%
-1.5
5%-0
.09%
0.54
%20
0036
800
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s19
,135
,687
2,03
9,21
8
4,20
2,53
8
(2,1
63,3
21)
-11.
31%
-10.
92%
-9.3
1%-9
.68%
-8.2
2%-6
.59%
-4.9
4%-4
.06%
-2.8
8%-1
.45%
2001
3680
0 Li
ne T
rans
form
ers
19,1
36,5
71
2,
066,
116
3,
661,
584
(1
,595
,468
)-8
.34%
-9.8
2%-1
0.02
%-9
.05%
-9.3
9%-8
.25%
-6.8
9%-5
.45%
-4.6
4%-3
.53%
2002
3680
0 Li
ne T
rans
form
ers
21,5
58,6
81
1,
994,
259
4,
182,
063
(2
,187
,804
)-1
0.15
%-9
.30%
-9.9
4%-1
0.06
%-9
.30%
-9.5
4%-8
.59%
-7.4
3%-6
.13%
-5.3
6%20
0336
800
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s27
,447
,202
2,10
9,99
0
6,81
7,58
4
(4,7
07,5
94)
-17.
15%
-14.
07%
-12.
46%
-12.
21%
-11.
93%
-11.
07%
-11.
08%
-10.
18%
-9.1
1%-7
.86%
2004
3680
0 Li
ne T
rans
form
ers
29,5
63,2
87
2,
369,
283
6,
845,
696
(4
,476
,412
)-1
5.14
%-1
6.11
%-1
4.47
%-1
3.27
%-1
2.95
%-1
2.64
%-1
1.87
%-1
1.81
%-1
1.01
%-1
0.05
%20
0536
800
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s33
,595
,329
4,20
0,34
1
7,95
0,22
7
(3,7
49,8
86)
-11.
16%
-13.
02%
-14.
27%
-13.
48%
-12.
73%
-12.
55%
-12.
34%
-11.
74%
-11.
70%
-11.
03%
2006
3680
0 Li
ne T
rans
form
ers
32,7
95,3
19
5,
761,
654
7,
379,
127
(1
,617
,473
)-4
.93%
-8.0
8%-1
0.26
%-1
1.79
%-1
1.55
%-1
1.17
%-1
1.19
%-1
1.13
%-1
0.71
%-1
0.74
%20
0736
800
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s82
,633
,959
18,2
89,6
30
28
,192
,597
(9,9
02,9
67)
-11.
98%
-9.9
8%-1
0.25
%-1
1.06
%-1
1.87
%-1
1.71
%-1
1.44
%-1
1.43
%-1
1.38
%-1
1.06
%20
0836
800
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s8,
440,
110
10
,097
,105
2,47
2,01
0
7,62
5,09
590
.34%
-2.5
0%-3
.14%
-4.8
6%-6
.48%
-7.8
5%-8
.06%
-8.0
8%-8
.30%
-8.4
3%20
0936
800
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s5,
400,
614
6,
058,
266
14
,551
,185
(8,4
92,9
19)
-157
.26%
-6.2
7%-1
1.16
%-9
.58%
-9.9
1%-1
0.71
%-1
1.52
%-1
1.39
%-1
1.17
%-1
1.18
%20
1036
800
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s30
,396
,645
7,13
2,42
3
24,9
30,3
19
(1
7,79
7,89
6)-5
8.55
%-7
3.44
%-4
2.19
%-2
2.52
%-1
8.91
%-1
7.56
%-1
7.24
%-1
7.23
%-1
6.67
%-1
6.12
%20
1136
800
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s72
,956
,890
7,74
8,56
7
30,2
90,6
93
(2
2,54
2,12
5)-3
0.90
%-3
9.03
%-4
4.90
%-3
5.16
%-2
5.58
%-2
2.67
%-2
1.21
%-2
0.61
%-2
0.31
%-1
9.68
%20
1236
800
Line
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s40
,788
,745
6,27
1,11
0
40,0
40,7
00
(3
3,76
9,59
0)-8
2.79
%-4
9.51
%-5
1.41
%-5
5.24
%-4
7.46
%-3
5.28
%-3
1.64
%-2
9.40
%-2
8.14
%-2
7.32
%
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 16
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
1986
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
4,00
1,24
4
576,
041
3,25
7,58
9
(2,6
81,5
48)
-67.
02%
1987
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
3,33
5,89
1
736,
027
3,53
3,32
2
(2,7
97,2
94)
-83.
85%
-74.
67%
19
8836
900
Ser
vice
s3,
312,
528
73
9,23
3
3,
365,
571
(2
,626
,337
)-7
9.28
%-8
1.58
%-7
6.11
%
19
8936
900
Ser
vice
s4,
285,
750
1,
211,
148
3,
749,
827
(2
,538
,679
)-5
9.24
%-6
7.98
%-7
2.82
%-7
1.27
%
1990
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
5,68
6,46
7
767,
138
4,36
9,91
9
(3,6
02,7
81)
-63.
36%
-61.
59%
-66.
00%
-69.
58%
-69.
09%
1991
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
4,90
3,50
9
782,
046
4,36
9,75
0
(3,5
87,7
04)
-73.
17%
-67.
90%
-65.
40%
-67.
93%
-70.
40%
-69.
87%
19
9236
900
Ser
vice
s7,
695,
344
56
4,01
4
4,
020,
594
(3
,456
,581
)-4
4.92
%-5
5.91
%-5
8.23
%-5
8.42
%-6
1.09
%-6
3.69
%-6
4.09
%
19
9336
900
Ser
vice
s3,
207,
764
55
5,30
2
3,
673,
526
(3
,118
,224
)-9
7.21
%-6
0.30
%-6
4.29
%-6
4.05
%-6
3.25
%-6
5.07
%-6
7.00
%-6
7.01
%
1994
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
2,98
0,73
8
448,
275
3,15
3,13
1
(2,7
04,8
56)
-90.
74%
-94.
10%
-66.
84%
-68.
49%
-67.
30%
-66.
10%
-67.
46%
-69.
00%
-68.
80%
1995
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
1,37
0,78
3
508,
445
1,97
1,32
3
(1,4
62,8
77)
-106
.72%
-95.
78%
-96.
38%
-70.
42%
-71.
09%
-69.
39%
-67.
94%
-69.
07%
-70.
41%
-70.
08%
1996
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
1,40
7,38
7
323,
418
1,90
4,29
6
(1,5
80,8
78)
-112
.33%
-109
.56%
-99.
82%
-98.
89%
-73.
96%
-73.
78%
-71.
61%
-69.
92%
-70.
81%
-71.
95%
1997
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
1,35
1,47
4
288,
447
3,12
3,41
7
(2,8
34,9
70)
-209
.77%
-160
.06%
-142
.35%
-120
.72%
-113
.41%
-84.
15%
-81.
80%
-78.
13%
-75.
67%
-76.
00%
1998
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
1,34
1,20
0
489,
451
3,26
8,49
9
(2,7
79,0
48)
-207
.21%
-208
.49%
-175
.48%
-158
.25%
-134
.44%
-124
.20%
-92.
68%
-88.
73%
-83.
91%
-80.
82%
1999
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
1,85
0,40
9
437,
110
3,07
5,48
5
(2,6
38,3
75)
-142
.58%
-169
.74%
-181
.65%
-165
.25%
-154
.29%
-135
.91%
-126
.72%
-97.
03%
-92.
55%
-87.
33%
2000
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
1,70
6,46
3
245,
157
3,41
0,52
0
(3,1
65,3
63)
-185
.49%
-163
.17%
-175
.23%
-182
.70%
-169
.76%
-160
.19%
-142
.95%
-133
.31%
-103
.62%
-98.
25%
2001
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
2,16
2,17
7
156,
136
3,74
3,77
2
(3,5
87,6
36)
-165
.93%
-174
.56%
-164
.21%
-172
.38%
-178
.39%
-168
.92%
-161
.30%
-146
.46%
-137
.37%
-108
.99%
2002
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
3,86
9,19
9
192,
775
5,22
3,15
7
(5,0
30,3
82)
-130
.01%
-142
.89%
-152
.28%
-150
.41%
-157
.38%
-163
.15%
-157
.92%
-153
.26%
-142
.93%
-136
.03%
2003
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
5,56
8,54
1
226,
113
9,14
4,79
6
(8,9
18,6
82)
-160
.16%
-147
.80%
-151
.18%
-155
.58%
-153
.99%
-158
.32%
-162
.21%
-158
.57%
-155
.12%
-146
.99%
2004
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
4,51
2,20
4
210,
627
9,35
3,51
2
(9,1
42,8
85)
-202
.63%
-179
.17%
-165
.53%
-165
.59%
-167
.49%
-165
.15%
-167
.83%
-170
.37%
-166
.93%
-163
.65%
2005
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
6,15
4,43
5
394,
061
11,5
75,3
09
(1
1,18
1,24
8)-1
81.6
8%-1
90.5
4%-1
80.1
2%-1
70.4
8%-1
70.0
3%-1
71.1
3%-1
69.0
9%-1
70.9
7%-1
72.8
1%-1
69.9
7%20
0636
900
Ser
vice
s6,
131,
825
47
9,82
0
15
,888
,736
(15,
408,
915)
-251
.29%
-216
.42%
-212
.72%
-199
.63%
-189
.36%
-187
.58%
-187
.46%
-184
.86%
-185
.76%
-186
.70%
2007
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
7,62
9,07
3
221,
505
15,9
17,1
75
(1
5,69
5,67
0)-2
05.7
3%-2
26.0
4%-2
12.3
3%-2
10.5
4%-2
01.1
8%-1
93.0
5%-1
91.4
2%-1
91.1
6%-1
88.8
9%-1
89.4
9%20
0836
900
Ser
vice
s60
8,04
0
15
7,13
5
1,
086,
892
(9
29,7
57)
-152
.91%
-201
.84%
-222
.94%
-210
.57%
-209
.14%
-200
.23%
-192
.34%
-190
.79%
-190
.55%
-188
.34%
2009
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
1,18
9,96
6
617,
937
5,63
6,79
2
(5,0
18,8
55)
-421
.76%
-330
.84%
-229
.60%
-238
.15%
-222
.14%
-218
.78%
-208
.52%
-200
.00%
-198
.05%
-197
.51%
2010
3690
0 S
ervi
ces
1,39
3,56
3
88,1
94
7,
100,
471
(7
,012
,276
)-5
03.1
9%-4
65.6
9%-4
06.1
0%-2
64.8
3%-2
59.9
4%-2
39.0
9%-2
33.1
3%-2
20.8
9%-2
11.4
0%-2
08.8
9%20
1136
900
Ser
vice
s1,
823,
327
10
3,92
0
8,
757,
575
(8
,653
,654
)-4
74.6
1%-4
86.9
9%-4
69.3
8%-4
31.0
1%-2
95.0
8%-2
80.7
8%-2
56.3
2%-2
48.0
9%-2
34.1
0%-2
23.7
4%20
1236
900
Ser
vice
s1,
929,
575
83
,049
8,41
9,05
8
(8,3
36,0
09)
-432
.01%
-452
.71%
-466
.38%
-458
.00%
-431
.29%
-313
.21%
-294
.88%
-268
.94%
-259
.40%
-244
.44%
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 17
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
2007
3700
0 S
mar
t Met
ers
-
-
-
0N
A20
0837
000
Sm
art M
eter
s-
-
-
0
NA
NA
20
0937
000
Sm
art M
eter
s-
-
-
0
NA
NA
NA
2010
3700
0 S
mar
t Met
ers
-
-
-
0N
AN
AN
AN
A
2011
3700
0 S
mar
t Met
ers
28,9
10
-
28,2
15
(2
8,21
5)-9
7.60
%-9
7.60
%-9
7.60
%-9
7.60
%-9
7.60
%20
1237
000
Sm
art M
eter
s21
3,14
7
-
-
0
0.00
%-1
1.66
%-1
1.66
%-1
1.66
%-1
1.66
%-1
1.66
%
1986
3700
0 M
eter
s1,
826,
295
34
8,03
9
54
1,76
9
(1
93,7
31)
-10.
61%
1987
3700
0 M
eter
s1,
754,
380
(6
6,51
7)
67
6,92
3
(7
43,4
39)
-42.
38%
-26.
17%
19
8837
000
Met
ers
2,84
3,37
8
156,
611
958,
774
(802
,163
)-2
8.21
%-3
3.62
%-2
7.08
%
19
8937
000
Met
ers
6,80
2,52
2
287,
599
1,46
5,40
0
(1,1
77,8
00)
-17.
31%
-20.
53%
-23.
89%
-22.
06%
19
9037
000
Met
ers
7,11
5,35
1
93,6
35
1,
413,
437
(1
,319
,802
)-1
8.55
%-1
7.95
%-1
9.69
%-2
1.84
%-2
0.83
%19
9137
000
Met
ers
3,31
6,91
9
85,6
71
1,
113,
039
(1
,027
,368
)-3
0.97
%-2
2.50
%-2
0.45
%-2
1.55
%-2
3.22
%-2
2.25
%
1992
3700
0 M
eter
s3,
770,
752
15
1,56
0
1,
590,
301
(1
,438
,741
)-3
8.16
%-3
4.79
%-2
6.66
%-2
3.63
%-2
4.18
%-2
5.42
%-2
4.44
%
19
9337
000
Met
ers
4,13
5,65
2
99,6
43
2,
727,
996
(2
,628
,353
)-6
3.55
%-5
1.44
%-4
5.39
%-3
4.98
%-3
0.20
%-3
0.00
%-3
0.73
%-2
9.56
%
1994
3700
0 M
eter
s4,
236,
759
91
,478
2,21
5,99
6
(2,1
24,5
19)
-50.
14%
-56.
77%
-50.
99%
-46.
69%
-37.
82%
-33.
07%
-32.
65%
-33.
15%
-32.
00%
1995
3700
0 M
eter
s4,
960,
770
13
4,61
6
1,
610,
009
(1
,475
,393
)-2
9.74
%-3
9.14
%-4
6.71
%-4
4.83
%-4
2.58
%-3
6.37
%-3
2.59
%-3
2.26
%-3
2.71
%-3
1.72
%19
9637
000
Met
ers
3,95
8,49
0
58,4
92
1,
533,
674
(1
,475
,183
)-3
7.27
%-3
3.08
%-3
8.58
%-4
4.55
%-4
3.41
%-4
1.71
%-3
6.48
%-3
3.08
%-3
2.74
%-3
3.13
%19
9737
000
Met
ers
5,52
1,91
5
86,2
02
1,
424,
125
(1
,337
,923
)-2
4.23
%-2
9.67
%-2
9.70
%-3
4.33
%-3
9.63
%-3
9.42
%-3
8.48
%-3
4.65
%-3
1.96
%-3
1.73
%19
9837
000
Met
ers
4,44
2,08
4
138,
025
1,81
7,53
0
(1,6
79,5
05)
-37.
81%
-30.
28%
-32.
27%
-31.
60%
-35.
00%
-39.
33%
-39.
19%
-38.
40%
-34.
99%
-32.
50%
1999
3700
0 M
eter
s3,
590,
973
92
,058
927,
834
(835
,776
)-2
3.27
%-3
1.31
%-2
8.43
%-3
0.42
%-3
0.27
%-3
3.43
%-3
7.46
%-3
7.54
%-3
6.97
%-3
4.06
%20
0037
000
Met
ers
5,76
6,67
1
304,
558
718,
502
(413
,944
)-7
.18%
-13.
36%
-21.
23%
-22.
08%
-24.
67%
-25.
56%
-28.
77%
-32.
69%
-33.
20%
-33.
04%
2001
3700
0 M
eter
s5,
467,
254
14
8,07
4
75
1,68
1
(6
03,6
07)
-11.
04%
-9.0
6%-1
2.50
%-1
8.34
%-1
9.65
%-2
2.07
%-2
3.20
%-2
6.21
%-2
9.88
%-3
0.56
%20
0237
000
Met
ers
9,57
6,96
9
106,
607
1,02
6,96
4
(920
,357
)-9
.61%
-10.
13%
-9.3
1%-1
1.37
%-1
5.44
%-1
6.85
%-1
8.96
%-2
0.20
%-2
2.87
%-2
6.12
%20
0337
000
Met
ers
5,62
0,97
0
116,
923
525,
500
(408
,577
)-7
.27%
-8.7
4%-9
.35%
-8.8
8%-1
0.60
%-1
4.11
%-1
5.50
%-1
7.46
%-1
8.71
%-2
1.22
%20
0437
000
Met
ers
6,39
1,25
7
75,0
95
84
8,05
9
(7
72,9
64)
-12.
09%
-9.8
4%-9
.74%
-10.
00%
-9.5
0%-1
0.86
%-1
3.79
%-1
5.03
%-1
6.78
%-1
7.95
%20
0537
000
Met
ers
5,58
6,68
4
139,
263
1,07
1,40
8
(932
,145
)-1
6.69
%-1
4.24
%-1
2.01
%-1
1.16
%-1
1.14
%-1
0.55
%-1
1.64
%-1
4.14
%-1
5.21
%-1
6.77
%20
0637
000
Met
ers
4,26
7,23
6
274,
361
1,35
3,77
6
(1,0
79,4
16)
-25.
30%
-20.
41%
-17.
14%
-14.
60%
-13.
08%
-12.
78%
-12.
02%
-12.
90%
-15.
08%
-15.
98%
2007
3700
0 M
eter
s7,
301,
608
53
1,63
7
6,
559,
356
(6
,027
,718
)-8
2.55
%-6
1.43
%-4
6.86
%-3
7.42
%-3
1.61
%-2
6.17
%-2
4.30
%-2
2.33
%-2
2.39
%-2
3.57
%20
0837
000
Met
ers
12,1
08,4
44
32
8,73
2
1,
253
32
7,47
92.
70%
-29.
37%
-28.
63%
-26.
35%
-23.
80%
-21.
55%
-19.
30%
-18.
50%
-17.
45%
-17.
76%
2009
3700
0 M
eter
s25
,452
1,27
3,06
0
4,78
8,13
7
(3,5
15,0
77)
-138
10.6
7%-2
6.27
%-4
7.41
%-4
3.43
%-3
8.33
%-3
3.63
%-3
0.04
%-2
6.20
%-2
4.73
%-2
3.10
%20
1037
000
Met
ers
165,
653,
056
1,
584,
672
36
6,81
7
1,
217,
855
0.74
%-1
.39%
-1.1
1%-4
.32%
-4.7
9%-5
.13%
-5.3
6%-5
.41%
-5.5
9%-5
.73%
2011
3700
0 M
eter
s10
7,70
1,92
6
1,38
4,69
4
889,
244
495,
449
0.46
%0.
63%
-0.6
6%-0
.52%
-2.5
6%-2
.89%
-3.1
4%-3
.33%
-3.4
0%-3
.58%
2012
3700
0 M
eter
s14
2,37
6,78
3
1,02
3,91
2
353,
471
670,
441
0.47
%0.
47%
0.57
%-0
.27%
-0.1
9%-1
.57%
-1.8
0%-1
.99%
-2.1
3%-2
.19%
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 18
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
1986
3730
0 S
treet
Lig
htin
g1,
790,
494
1,
292,
852
95
7,58
7
33
5,26
418
.72%
1987
3730
0 S
treet
Lig
htin
g1,
756,
273
75
0,61
0
90
6,67
5
(1
56,0
65)
-8.8
9%5.
05%
1988
3730
0 S
treet
Lig
htin
g1,
907,
126
88
0,16
3
95
1,39
5
(7
1,23
2)-3
.74%
-6.2
0%1.
98%
1989
3730
0 S
treet
Lig
htin
g2,
097,
179
1,
565,
889
1,
057,
201
50
8,68
924
.26%
10.9
2%4.
88%
8.17
%
1990
3730
0 S
treet
Lig
htin
g1,
945,
917
95
1,00
2
1,
224,
233
(2
73,2
31)
-14.
04%
5.82
%2.
76%
0.11
%3.
62%
1991
3730
0 S
treet
Lig
htin
g2,
156,
458
1,
164,
065
1,
555,
105
(3
91,0
39)
-18.
13%
-16.
19%
-2.5
1%-2
.80%
-3.8
8%-0
.41%
19
9237
300
Stre
et L
ight
ing
2,64
0,21
3
1,42
8,07
4
1,72
3,64
8
(295
,575
)-1
1.20
%-1
4.31
%-1
4.24
%-5
.10%
-4.8
6%-5
.43%
-2.4
0%19
9337
300
Stre
et L
ight
ing
2,26
1,20
5
1,24
9,66
8
1,46
9,83
3
(220
,165
)-9
.74%
-10.
52%
-12.
85%
-13.
11%
-6.0
5%-5
.71%
-6.0
9%-3
.40%
1994
3730
0 S
treet
Lig
htin
g1,
884,
132
1,
190,
711
1,
538,
642
(3
47,9
30)
-18.
47%
-13.
70%
-12.
73%
-14.
03%
-14.
03%
-7.8
5%-7
.32%
-7.4
9%-4
.94%
1995
3730
0 S
treet
Lig
htin
g2,
352,
652
1,
550,
784
1,
633,
509
(8
2,72
5)-3
.52%
-10.
16%
-10.
02%
-10.
36%
-11.
84%
-12.
16%
-7.1
8%-6
.80%
-7.0
0%-4
.78%
1996
3730
0 S
treet
Lig
htin
g2,
418,
490
1,
190,
609
1,
647,
382
(4
56,7
73)
-18.
89%
-11.
31%
-13.
33%
-12.
42%
-12.
14%
-13.
08%
-13.
20%
-8.7
8%-8
.29%
-8.3
4%19
9737
300
Stre
et L
ight
ing
2,13
2,86
2
960,
577
1,68
4,53
8
(723
,961
)-3
3.94
%-2
5.94
%-1
8.30
%-1
8.34
%-1
6.58
%-1
5.54
%-1
5.89
%-1
5.69
%-1
1.48
%-1
0.80
%19
9837
300
Stre
et L
ight
ing
3,52
8,77
1
2,79
5,33
3
2,22
5,29
6
570,
036
16.1
5%-2
.72%
-7.5
6%-6
.65%
-8.4
5%-8
.65%
-9.0
4%-1
0.05
%-1
0.42
%-7
.31%
1999
3730
0 S
treet
Lig
htin
g2,
892,
305
2,
593,
028
2,
300,
732
29
2,29
610
.11%
13.4
3%1.
62%
-2.9
0%-3
.01%
-4.9
3%-5
.55%
-6.2
9%-7
.44%
-7.9
7%20
0037
300
Stre
et L
ight
ing
3,14
4,61
3
1,39
6,40
7
2,46
4,45
7
(1,0
68,0
50)
-33.
96%
-12.
85%
-2.1
5%-7
.95%
-9.8
2%-8
.92%
-9.9
0%-9
.88%
-10.
03%
-10.
72%
2001
3730
0 S
treet
Lig
htin
g2,
401,
133
84
8,82
5
2,
006,
991
(1
,158
,166
)-4
8.23
%-4
0.14
%-2
2.92
%-1
1.40
%-1
4.81
%-1
5.40
%-1
3.92
%-1
4.34
%-1
3.88
%-1
3.61
%20
0237
300
Stre
et L
ight
ing
2,86
1,34
8
938,
664
2,28
7,00
8
(1,3
48,3
44)
-47.
12%
-47.
63%
-42.
52%
-29.
05%
-18.
29%
-20.
26%
-20.
09%
-18.
29%
-18.
31%
-17.
56%
2003
3730
0 S
treet
Lig
htin
g3,
678,
673
1,
253,
246
2,
948,
254
(1
,695
,007
)-4
6.08
%-4
6.53
%-4
6.99
%-4
3.60
%-3
3.23
%-2
3.81
%-2
4.86
%-2
4.23
%-2
2.32
%-2
2.05
%20
0437
300
Stre
et L
ight
ing
3,62
1,19
8
910,
167
4,11
5,28
1
(3,2
05,1
14)
-88.
51%
-67.
13%
-61.
49%
-58.
96%
-53.
95%
-43.
99%
-34.
40%
-34.
36%
-32.
96%
-30.
57%
2005
3730
0 S
treet
Lig
htin
g4,
671,
903
1,
294,
699
5,
415,
203
(4
,120
,504
)-8
8.20
%-8
8.33
%-7
5.35
%-6
9.90
%-6
6.89
%-6
1.81
%-5
2.87
%-4
3.78
%-4
3.05
%-4
1.19
%20
0637
300
Stre
et L
ight
ing
9,26
0,88
5
2,15
4,81
8
8,22
5,81
2
(6,0
70,9
94)
-65.
56%
-73.
15%
-76.
32%
-71.
08%
-68.
23%
-66.
42%
-62.
98%
-56.
48%
-49.
37%
-48.
51%
2007
3730
0 S
treet
Lig
htin
g8,
933,
657
2,
275,
049
7,
605,
647
(5
,330
,598
)-5
9.67
%-6
2.66
%-6
7.88
%-7
0.70
%-6
7.70
%-6
5.92
%-6
4.72
%-6
2.21
%-5
7.17
%-5
1.42
%20
0837
300
Stre
et L
ight
ing
2,21
4,84
7
102,
957
3,13
0,37
2
(3,0
27,4
15)
-136
.69%
-74.
97%
-70.
70%
-73.
96%
-75.
79%
-72.
42%
-70.
36%
-68.
95%
-66.
25%
-61.
20%
2009
3730
0 S
treet
Lig
htin
g5,
917,
075
91
0,16
2
4,
567,
812
(3
,657
,650
)-6
1.82
%-8
2.21
%-7
0.41
%-6
8.70
%-7
1.64
%-7
3.40
%-7
0.78
%-6
9.13
%-6
7.98
%-6
5.69
%20
1037
300
Stre
et L
ight
ing
5,21
4,35
2
297,
561
6,02
3,23
3
(5,7
25,6
72)
-109
.81%
-84.
30%
-92.
99%
-79.
63%
-75.
50%
-77.
14%
-78.
17%
-75.
46%
-73.
71%
-72.
45%
2011
3730
0 S
treet
Lig
htin
g7,
136,
187
35
0,02
6
6,
356,
097
(6
,006
,072
)-8
4.16
%-9
4.99
%-8
4.24
%-8
9.92
%-8
0.73
%-7
7.10
%-7
8.29
%-7
9.08
%-7
6.68
%-7
5.10
%20
1237
300
Stre
et L
ight
ing
7,46
5,77
2
280,
461
6,12
8,04
1
(5,8
47,5
80)
-78.
33%
-81.
18%
-88.
71%
-82.
53%
-86.
82%
-80.
24%
-77.
29%
-78.
30%
-78.
98%
-76.
89%
App
endi
x E
Pag
e 19
of 1
9
2- y
r3-
yr
4- y
r5-
yr
6- y
r7-
yr
8- y
r9-
yr
10- y
rTr
ansa
ctio
nG
ross
Cos
t of
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
N
et
Net
Ye
arD
escr
iptio
nR
etire
men
tsSa
lvag
eR
emov
alSa
lvag
eSa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %Sa
lv. %
Salv
. %
SOU
THER
N C
ALI
FOR
NIA
ED
ISO
NR
ETIR
EMEN
TS, G
RO
SS S
ALV
AG
E, A
ND
REM
OVA
L C
OST
AS
AD
JUST
ED
1986
390
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts4,
924
-
-
0
0.00
%19
8739
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
2,37
3
-
-
00.
00%
0.00
%
19
8839
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
95,5
11
-
24,5
23
(2
4,52
3)-2
5.68
%-2
5.05
%-2
3.85
%
19
8939
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
1,80
7,45
5
-
7,
749
(7
,749
)-0
.43%
-1.7
0%-1
.69%
-1.6
9%
1990
390
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts32
6,93
4
-
19,3
03
(1
9,30
3)-5
.90%
-1.2
7%-2
.31%
-2.3
1%-2
.31%
1991
390
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts27
4,70
0
46
3
33
,860
(33,
397)
-12.
16%
-8.7
6%-2
.51%
-3.3
9%-3
.39%
-3.3
8%
1992
390
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts26
4,06
8
-
6,93
6
(6,9
36)
-2.6
3%-7
.49%
-6.8
9%-2
.52%
-3.3
2%-3
.32%
-3.3
1%19
9339
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
203,
813
-
34
2,33
6
(3
42,3
36)
-167
.97%
-74.
65%
-51.
53%
-37.
58%
-14.
24%
-14.
61%
-14.
60%
-14.
57%
1994
390
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts27
3,41
7
-
71,3
07
(7
1,30
7)-2
6.08
%-8
6.68
%-5
6.74
%-4
4.68
%-3
5.24
%-1
5.27
%-1
5.58
%-1
5.56
%-1
5.54
%19
9539
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
2,71
3,12
3
-
71
,122
(71,
122)
-2.6
2%-4
.77%
-15.
19%
-14.
23%
-14.
08%
-13.
42%
-9.4
2%-9
.68%
-9.6
7%-9
.67%
1996
390
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts18
2,71
1
-
29,8
84
(2
9,88
4)-1
6.36
%-3
.49%
-5.4
4%-1
5.26
%-1
4.34
%-1
4.19
%-1
3.55
%-9
.63%
-9.8
8%-9
.87%
1997
390
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts1,
310,
305
-
112,
087
(112
,087
)-8
.55%
-9.5
1%-5
.07%
-6.3
5%-1
3.38
%-1
2.81
%-1
2.77
%-1
2.37
%-9
.44%
-9.6
4%19
9839
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
1,23
6,38
6
-
86
,602
(86,
602)
-7.0
0%-7
.80%
-8.3
7%-5
.51%
-6.4
9%-1
2.05
%-1
1.65
%-1
1.67
%-1
1.39
%-9
.09%
1999
390
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts4,
582,
497
-
704,
315
(704
,315
)-1
5.37
%-1
3.59
%-1
2.67
%-1
2.76
%-1
0.02
%-1
0.44
%-1
3.50
%-1
3.23
%-1
3.21
%-1
3.00
%20
0039
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
1,96
6,59
3
23,2
66
37
4,86
4
(3
51,5
98)
-17.
88%
-16.
12%
-14.
67%
-13.
79%
-13.
84%
-11.
30%
-11.
63%
-14.
19%
-13.
95%
-13.
91%
2001
390
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts3,
165,
241
36
5
50
2,13
4
(5
01,7
69)
-15.
85%
-16.
63%
-16.
03%
-15.
02%
-14.
32%
-14.
35%
-12.
25%
-12.
50%
-14.
53%
-14.
33%
2002
390
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts8,
578,
718
-
542,
287
(542
,287
)-6
.32%
-8.8
9%-1
0.18
%-1
1.48
%-1
1.20
%-1
1.03
%-1
1.08
%-1
0.11
%-1
0.29
%-1
1.62
%20
0339
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
3,61
6,72
0
-
59
1,36
9
(5
91,3
69)
-16.
35%
-9.3
0%-1
0.65
%-1
1.47
%-1
2.28
%-1
2.00
%-1
1.82
%-1
1.85
%-1
0.94
%-1
1.09
%20
0439
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
4,37
4,54
2
1,19
1,39
1
799,
154
392,
237
8.97
%-2
.49%
-4.4
7%-6
.30%
-7.3
5%-8
.75%
-8.6
7%-8
.66%
-8.7
1%-8
.19%
2005
390
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts1,
527,
788
-
882,
067
(882
,067
)-5
7.73
%-8
.30%
-11.
36%
-8.9
7%-1
0.00
%-1
0.66
%-1
1.44
%-1
1.25
%-1
1.13
%-1
1.16
%20
0639
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
1,53
5,92
1
-
38
0,25
9
(3
80,2
59)
-24.
76%
-41.
20%
-11.
70%
-13.
22%
-10.
21%
-10.
99%
-11.
54%
-12.
14%
-11.
93%
-11.
79%
2007
390
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts62
8,82
9
-
372,
196
(372
,196
)-5
9.19
%-3
4.76
%-4
4.27
%-1
5.40
%-1
5.69
%-1
1.73
%-1
2.28
%-1
2.72
%-1
3.12
%-1
2.88
%20
0839
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
1,64
5,78
6
-
1,
161,
534
(1
,161
,534
)-7
0.58
%-6
7.43
%-5
0.23
%-5
2.38
%-2
4.75
%-2
2.47
%-1
6.15
%-1
6.11
%-1
6.24
%-1
6.11
%20
0939
0 S
truct
ures
and
Impr
ovem
ents
446,
444
-
87
,744
(87,
744)
-19.
65%
-59.
71%
-59.
59%
-47.
02%
-49.
85%
-24.
52%
-22.
38%
-16.
22%
-16.
17%
-16.
29%
2010
390
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts5,
258,
925
-
2,62
0,24
3
(2,6
20,2
43)
-49.
82%
-47.
46%
-52.
64%
-53.
15%
-48.
57%
-49.
84%
-33.
15%
-29.
96%
-22.
62%
-21.
92%
2011
390
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts8,
993,
517
-
2,04
8,47
2
(2,0
48,4
72)
-22.
78%
-32.
76%
-32.
36%
-36.
21%
-37.
06%
-36.
04%
-37.
69%
-29.
33%
-27.
66%
-22.
66%
2012
390
Stru
ctur
es a
nd Im
prov
emen
ts23
,039
,873
-
2,
732,
872
(2
,732
,872
)-1
1.86
%-1
4.93
%-1
9.85
%-1
9.85
%-2
1.97
%-2
2.55
%-2
2.63
%-2
3.88
%-2
0.85
%-2
0.53
%
APPENDIX F
List of Appearances before Regulatory Bodies by Dane A. Watson
Dane�Watson�Studies�/�Testimony�Before�Regulatory�Commissions Appendix�F1�of�6
Asset Location Commission Docket (If Applicable Company Year Description
North Carolina/South Carolin FERC ER13-1313 Progress Energy Carolina 2013 Electric Depreciation Study
WisconsinPublic Service Commission of
Wisconsin4220-DU-108 Northern States
Power- Wisconsin 2013Electric, Gas and Common
Transmission, Distribution and General
Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas 41474 Sharyland 2013 Electric Depreciation Study
Kentucky Kentucky Public Service Commission 2013-00148 Atmos Energy
Corporation 2013 Gas Depreciation Study
Minnesota Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 13-252 Minnesota Power 2013 Electric Depreciation Study
New HampshireNew Hampshire Public Service Commission
DE 13-063 Liberty Utilities 2013 Electric Distribution and General
Texas Railroad Commission of Texas 10235 West Texas Gas 2013 Gas Depreciation Study
North Dakota North Dakota Public Service Commission PU-12-0813 Northern States
Power 2012Electric, Gas and Common
Transmission, Distribution and General
AlaskaRegulatory
Commission of Alaska
U-12-154 Alaska Telephone Company 2012 Telecommunications Utility
New MexicoNew Mexico Public
RegulationCommission
12-00350-UT SPS 2012 Electric Depreciation Study
Colorado Colorado Public Utilities Commission
12AL-1269ST
Public Service of Colorado 2012 Gas and Steam Depreciation
Study
Colorado Colorado Public Utilities Commission 12AL-1268G Public Service of
Colorado 2012 Gas and Steam Depreciation Study
AlaskaRegulatory
Commission of Alaska
U-12-149Municipal Power and Light City of
Anchorage2012 Electric Depreciation Study
Texas Texas Public Utility Commission 40824 Xcel Energy 2012 Electric Depreciation Study
South CarolinaPublic Service
Commission of South Carolina
Docket 2012-384-E
Progress Energy Carolina 2012 Electric Depreciation Study
AlaskaRegulatory
Commission of Alaska
U-12-141 Interior Telephone Company 2012 Telecommunications Utility
Dane�Watson�Studies�/�Testimony�Before�Regulatory�Commissions Appendix�F2�of�6
Asset Location Commission Docket (If Applicable Company Year Description
Michigan Michigan Public Service Commission U-17104
Michigan Gas Utilities
Corporation2012 Gas Depreciation Study
North Carolina North Carolina Utilities Commission E-2 Sub 1025 Progress Energy
Carolina 2012 Electric Depreciation Study
Texas Texas Public Utility Commission 40606 Wind Energy
Transmission Texas 2012 Electric Depreciation Study
Texas Texas Public Utility Commission 40604 Crosss Texas
Transmission 2012 Electric Depreciation Study
Minnesota Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 12-858 Northern States
Power 2012Electric, Gas and Common
Transmission, Distribution and General
Texas Railroad Commission of Texas 10170 Atmos Mid-Tex 2012 Gas Depreciation Study
Texas Railroad Commission of Texas 10174 Atmos West Texas 2012 Gas Depreciation Study
Texas Railroad Commission of Texas 10182
CenterPointBeaumont/ East
Texas2012 Gas Depreciation Study
Kansas Kansas Corporation Commission
12-KCPE-764-RTS
Kansas City Power and Light 2012 Electric Depreciation Study
NevadaPublic Utility
Commission of Nevada
12-04005 Southwest Gas 2012 Gas Depreciation Study
Texas Railroad Commission of Texas 10147, 10170 Atmos Mid-Tex 2012 Gas Depreciation Study
Kansas Kansas Corporation Commission
12-ATMG-564-RTS Atmos Kansas 2012 Gas Depreciation Study
Texas Texas Public Utility Commission 40020 Lone Star
Transmission 2012 Electric Depreciation Study
Michigan Michigan Public Service Commission U-16938 Consumers Energy
Company 2011 Gas Depreciation Study
ColoradoPublic Utilities Commission of
Colorado11AL-947E Public Service of
Colorado 2011 Electric Depreciation Study
Texas Texas Public Utility Commission 39896 Entergy Texas 2011 Electric Depreciation Study
MultiState FERC ER12-212American
TransmissionCompany
2011 Electric Depreciation Study
Dane�Watson�Studies�/�Testimony�Before�Regulatory�Commissions Appendix�F3�of�6
Asset Location Commission Docket (If Applicable Company Year Description
California California Public Utilities Commission A1011015 Southern California
Edison 2011 Electric Depreciation Study
Mississippi Mississippi Public Service Commission 2011-UN-184 Atmos Energy 2011 Gas Depreciation Study
TexasTexas Commission on Environmental
Quality
Matter 37050-R
Southwest Water Company 2011 WasteWater Depreciation Study
TexasTexas Commission on Environmental
Quality
Matter 37049-R
Southwest Water Company 2011 Water Depreciation Study
Michigan Michigan Public Service Commission U-16536 Consumers Energy
Company 2011 Wind Depreciation Rate Study
Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas 38929 Oncor 2011 Electric Depreciation Study
Texas Railroad Commission of Texas 10038 CenterPoint South
TX 2010 Gas Depreciation Study
AlaskaRegulatory
Commission of Alaska
U-10-070Inside Passage
ElectricCooperative
2010 Electric Depreciation Study
Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas 36633 City Public Service
of San Antonio 2010 Electric Depreciation Study
Texas Texas Railroad Commission 10000 Atmos Pipeline
Texas 2010 Gas Depreciation Study
Multi State – SE US FERC RP10-21-000 Florida Gas Transmission 2010 Gas Depreciation Study
Maine/ New Hampshire FERC 10-896 Granite State Gas Transmission 2010 Gas Depreciation Study
Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas 38480 Texas New Mexico
Power 2010 Electric Depreciation Study
Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas 38339 CenterPoint
Electric 2010 Electric Depreciation Study
California California Public Utility Commission A10071007 California
American Water2009-2010
Water and Waste Water Depreciation Study
Texas Texas Railroad Commission 10041 Atmos Amarillo 2010 Gas Depreciation Study
Georgia Georgia Public Service Commission 31647 Atlanta Gas Light 2010 Gas Depreciation Study
Dane�Watson�Studies�/�Testimony�Before�Regulatory�Commissions Appendix�F4�of�6
Asset Location Commission Docket (If Applicable Company Year Description
Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas 38147 Southwestern
Public Service 2010 Electric Technical Update
AlaskaRegulatory
Commission of Alaska
U-09-015 Alaska Electric Light and Power
2009-2010 Electric Depreciation Study
AlaskaRegulatory
Commission of Alaska
U-10-043 Utility Services of Alaska
2009-2010 Water Depreciation Study
Tennessee TennesseeRegulatory Authority 09-000183 AGL –
Chattanooga Gas 2009 Gas Depreciation Study
Michigan Michigan Public Service Commission U-16055
ConsumersEnergy/DTE
Energy
2009-2010
Ludington Pumped Storage Depreciation Study
Michigan Michigan Public Service Commission U-16054 Consumers Energy 2009-
2010 Electric Depreciation Study
Michigan Michigan Public Service Commission U-15963
Michigan Gas Utilities
Corporation2009 Gas Depreciation Study
Michigan Michigan Public Service Commission U-15989 Upper Peninsula
Power Company 2009 Electric Depreciation Study
Texas Railroad Commission of Texas 9869 Atmos Energy 2009 Shared Services Depreciation
Study
Mississippi Mississippi Public Service Commission 09-UN-334 CenterPoint Energy
Mississippi 2009 Gas Depreciation Study
Texas Railroad Commission of Texas 9902 CenterPoint Energy
Houston 2009 Gas Depreciation Study
Wyoming Wyoming Public Service Commission
30022-148-GR10 Source Gas 2009-
2010 Gas Depreciation Study
Colorado Colorado Public Utilities Commission 09AL-299E Public Service of
Colorado 2009 Electric Depreciation Study
Tennessee TennesseeRegulatory Authority 11-00144 Piedmont Natural
Gas 2009 Gas Depreciation Study
South CarolinaPublic Service
Commission of South Carolina
Piedmont Natural Gas 2009 Gas Depreciation Study
North Carolina North Carolina Utilities Commission
Piedmont Natural Gas 2009 Gas Depreciation Study
Louisiana Louisiana Public Service Commission U-30689 Cleco 2008 Electric Depreciation Study
Dane�Watson�Studies�/�Testimony�Before�Regulatory�Commissions Appendix�F5�of�6
Asset Location Commission Docket (If Applicable Company Year Description
Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas 35763 SPS 2008
Electric Production, Transmission, Distribution and
General Plant Depreciation Study
Wisconsin Wisconsin 05-DU-101 WE Energies 2008 Electric, Gas, Steam and Common Depreciation Studies
North Dakota North Dakota Public Service Commission PU-07-776 Northern States
Power 2008 Net Salvage
New MexicoNew Mexico Public
RegulationCommission
07-00319-UT SPS 2008 Testimony – Depreciation
Multiple States Railroad Commission of Texas 9762 Atmos Energy 2007-
2008Shared Services Depreciation
Study
Colorado Colorado Public Utilities Commission 10AL-963G Public Service of
Colorado2007-2008 Gas Depreciation Study
Minnesota Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
E015/D-08-422 Minnesota Power 2007-
2008 Electric Depreciation Study
Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas 35717 Oncor 2008 Electric Depreciation Study
Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas 34040 Oncor 2007 Electric Depreciation Study
Michigan Michigan Public Service Commission U-15629 Consumers Energy 2006-
2009 Gas Depreciation Study
Colorado Colorado Public Utilities Commission 06-234-EG Public Service of
Colorado 2006 Electric Depreciation Study
Multiple States Multiple NA CenterPoint Energy 2006 Shared Services Depreciation Study
Arkansas Arkansas Public Service Commission 06-161-U CenterPoint Energy
– Arkla Gas 2006 Gas Distribution Depreciation Study and Removal Cost Study
Texas, New Mexico Public Utility Commission of Texas 32766 Xcel Energy 2005-
2006
Electric Production, Transmission, Distribution and
General Plant Depreciation Study
Texas Railroad Commission of Texas 9670/9676 Atmos Energy Corp 2005-
2006Gas Distribution Depreciation
Study
Dane�Watson�Studies�/�Testimony�Before�Regulatory�Commissions Appendix�F6�of�6
Asset Location Commission Docket (If Applicable Company Year Description
Texas Railroad Commission of Texas 9400 TXU Gas 2003-
2004Gas Distribution Depreciation
Study
Texas Railroad Commission of Texas 9313 TXU Gas 2002 Gas Distribution Depreciation
Study
Texas Railroad Commission of Texas 9225 TXU Gas 2002 Gas Distribution Depreciation
Study
Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas 24060 TXU 2001 Line Losses
Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas 23640 TXU 2001 Line Losses
Texas Railroad Commission of Texas 9145-9148 TXU Gas 2000-
2001Gas Distribution Depreciation
Study
Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas 22350 TXU 2000-
2001Electric Depreciation Study,
Unbundling
Texas Railroad Commission of Texas 8976 TXU Pipeline 1999 Pipeline Depreciation Study
Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas 20285 TXU 1999 Fuel Company Depreciation
Study
Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas 18490 TXU 1998 Transition to Competition
Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas 16650 TXU 1997 Customer Complaint
Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas 15195 TXU 1996 Mining Company Depreciaiton
Study
Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas 12160 TXU 1993 Fuel Company Depreciation
Study
Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas 11735 TXU 1993 Electric Depreciation Study
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECTRIC UTILITY PLANT DEPRECIATION RATE STUDY
AT DECEMBER 31, 2012
http://www.utilityalliance.com
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECTRIC UTILITY PLANT
DEPRECIATION RATE STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Southern California Edison (“SCE” or “Company”) engaged Alliance
Consulting Group to conduct a depreciation study of the Company’s Electric and
Common utility plant depreciable assets as of December 31, 2012.
This study was conducted using the standard industry depreciation study
approach. The net salvage analysis in this study paralleled the approach previously
used by SCE in its 2012 GRC. This study follows the California Public Utility
Commission (“CPUC”)’s long-standing precedent of STANDARD PRACTICE U-4,
DETERMINATION OF STRAIGHT-LINE REMAINING LIFE DEPRECIATION ACCRUALS (“U-4,” or
“STANDARD PRACTICE U-4”), dated January 3, 1961. STANDARD PRACTICE U-4 “sets
forth various factors influencing the determination of depreciation accruals and
describes methods of calculating these accruals” with the purpose of assisting “the
Commission staff in determining proper depreciation expenses.”1 Although over 40
years old, the STANDARD PRACTICE U-4 represents conventional utility depreciation
practices and the CPUC continues to adhere to this standard.
For Production accounts, some generating units were excluded from the
study due to special circumstances regarding the recovery of those costs. The units
excluded from the study were: Mohave, Four Corners, San Onofre, the
decommission costs of Mountainview 1 and 2, and the decommissioning costs for
Solar 2. For the units in scope, most generating units retained the same lives. The
only generating unit to change its terminal life was Palo Verde, which reflects a 20-
year life extension granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. For all units, the
terminal demolition costs were impacted by updated dismantling studies for all
production facilities. These updated dismantling studies resulted in changes in
depreciation rates for all production functions.
For Transmission, Distribution and General Accounts, the lives of most
1 STANDARD PRACTICE U-4, p. 5.
accounts with changes exhibited longer lives than currently in effect. There are
seven accounts that have increasing lives, two that have a decreasing life and
ten accounts that have the same life. There are shifts in net salvage: Fourteen
accounts increasing their negative net salvage, four accounts with no change,
and one account decreasing its negative net salvage. The accounts with the
largest increases in negative net salvage are Account 369, Distribution Services
where the net salvage moved from negative 85 percent to negative 125 percent
and Account 364 Distribution Poles which moved from negative 190 percent to
negative 225 percent. The only account with a change in net salvage which
produced a decrease was Account 358 Transmission Underground Conductor
and Devices which moved from negative 20 percent to negative 15 percent.
This study recommends an overall increase of $102 million in annual
depreciation expense for all accounts. This consists of a decrease of $14 million
in annual depreciation expense for production facilities compared to the
depreciation rates currently in effect and an increase of $116 million in
Transmission, Distribution, General, Amortized, and Intangible assets annual
depreciation expense compared to the depreciation rates currently in effect.
Appendix B demonstrates the change in depreciation expense for the various
accounts.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECTRIC UTILITY PLANT
DEPRECIATION RATE STUDY
AT DECEMBER 31, 2012
Table of Contents
PURPOSE ............................................................................................................ 1�STUDY RESULTS ................................................................................................ 2�GENERAL DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 4�Definition............................................................................................................... 4�Basis of Depreciation Estimates ........................................................................... 4�Survivor Curves .................................................................................................... 5�Life Span Procedure ............................................................................................. 7�Theoretical Depreciation Reserve ...................................................................... 12�Depreciation Study Process ............................................................................... 14�Depreciation Rate Calculation ............................................................................ 17�Remaining Life Calculation ................................................................................. 17�Life Estimates ..................................................................................................... 23�Salvage Analysis ................................................................................................ 76�APPENDIX A Depreciation Rate Calculations .................................................... 99�APPENDIX B Depreciation Expense Comparison ............................................ 108�APPENDIX C Depreciation Parameter Comparison ......................................... 118�APPENDIX D Production Retirement Dates and Terminal Removal Cost ........ 122�APPENDIX E Net Salvage Analysis ................................................................. 124�
1
PURPOSEThe purpose of this study is to develop depreciation rates for the depreciable
property as recorded on Southern California Edison’s books at December 31, 2012.
The account based depreciation rates were designed to recover the total remaining
undepreciated investment, adjusted for net salvage, over the remaining life of
Southern California Edison’s property on a straight-line basis. Non-depreciable
property and transportation property were excluded from this study.
Southern California Edison (“SCE”) is one of the largest utilities in the United
States. In 2011, the Company delivered 87.34 billion kWh of electricity in 2011 and
powered a total of: 14 million+ people, 180 cities, 11 counties, 50,000 square miles
of service area, 5,000 large businesses, and 280,000 small businesses. To deliver
power safely, reliably and affordably, the Company monitors and maintains a vast
electricity system with the following transmission and distribution assets: 1.5 million+
electric poles. 700,000+ transformers, 55,000+ distribution switches, and 88,000+
miles of distribution lines.
2
STUDY RESULTSOverall depreciation rates for all Southern California Edison depreciable
property are shown in Appendix A. These rates translate into an annual
depreciation accrual of $1,494.3 million based on Southern California Edison's
depreciable investment at December 31, 2012. The annual equivalent
depreciation expense calculated by the same method using the approved rates is
$1,392.0 million. Certain generating units, namely San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station, Mohave Generating Station, and Four Corners Generating
Station, are excluded from this depreciation study. Additionally, decommissioning
related to Solar 2 and Mountainview Units 1 & 2, will not be covered in this
testimony. Special circumstances surrounding those assets are being addressed
by SCE. A table showing the present vs. proposed depreciation accrual rates is
shown below.
Type of Plant Accrual at
Existing Rates
$ x million
Accrual at
Proposed
Rates $ x
million
Difference
$ x million
Electric Nuclear – Palo Verde $25.6 $9.7 ($15.9)
Electric Hydro $22.3 $27.7 $5.4
Electric Other Production $61.2 $58.5 ($3.3)
Electric Transmission $199.4 $216.9 $17.5
Electric Distribution $654.6 $727.8 $73.2
Electric General Depreciable and
Amortized
$186.0 $211.5 $25.5
Electric Intangible and Common
Amortized
$242.3 $242.3 $0
Total $1392.0 $1494.3 $102.4
3
Appendix A demonstrates the development of the annual depreciation rates
and accruals. Appendix A-1 shows proposed Production Accrual rates and A-2
shows Transmission, Distribution, General Depreciable, and Amortized accounts
proposed accrual rates. Appendix B presents a comparison of approved rates
versus proposed rates by account. Appendix C presents a summary of mortality
and net salvage estimates by account for Transmission, Distribution and General
Depreciable assets. Appendix D presents the terminal retirement dates for
production facilities. Appendix E presents the net salvage analysis for
Transmission, Distribution, and General Accounts.
4
GENERAL DISCUSSION
DefinitionThe term "depreciation" as used in this study is considered in the accounting
sense, that is, a system of accounting that distributes the cost of assets, less net
salvage (if any), over the estimated useful life of the assets in a systematic and
rational manner. It is a process of allocation, not valuation. This expense is
systematically allocated to accounting periods over the life of the properties. The
amount allocated to any one accounting period does not necessarily represent the
loss or decrease in value that will occur during that particular period. The Company
accrues depreciation on the basis of the original cost of all depreciable property
included in each functional property group. On retirement the full cost of
depreciable property, less the net salvage value, is charged to the depreciation
reserve.
Basis of Depreciation EstimatesThe straight-line, broad (average life) group, remaining-life depreciation
system was employed to calculate annual and accrued depreciation in this study. In
this system, the annual depreciation expense for each group is computed by dividing
the original cost of the asset less allocated depreciation reserve less estimated
future net salvage by its respective average life group remaining life. The resulting
annual accrual amounts of all depreciable property within a function were
accumulated, and the total was divided by the original cost of all functional
depreciable property to determine the depreciation rate. The calculated remaining
lives and annual depreciation accrual rates were based on attained ages of plant in
service and the estimated service life and salvage characteristics of each
depreciable group. The computations of the annual functional depreciation rates are
shown in Appendix A.
SPR analysis was used with each account within a function where sufficient
data was available, and judgment was used to some degree on all accounts.
5
Survivor CurvesTo fully understand depreciation projections in a regulated utility setting, there
must be a basic understanding of survivor curves. Individual property units within a
group do not normally have identical lives or investment amounts. The average life
of a group can be determined by first constructing a survivor curve which is plotted
as a percentage of the units surviving at each age. A survivor curve represents the
percentage of property remaining in service at various age intervals. The Iowa
Curves are the result of an extensive investigation of life characteristics of physical
property made at Iowa State College Engineering Experiment Station in the first half
of the prior century. Through common usage, revalidation and regulatory
acceptance, these curves have become a descriptive standard for the life
characteristics of industrial property. An example of an Iowa Curve is shown below.
6
There are four families in the Iowa Curves that are distinguished by the relation
of the age at the retirement mode (largest annual retirement frequency) and the
average life. For distributions with the mode age greater than the average life, an
"R" designation (i.e., Right modal) is used. The family of “R” moded curves is shown
below.
Similarly, an "S" designation (i.e., Symmetric modal) is used for the family
whose mode age is symmetric about the average life. An "L" designation (i.e., Left
modal) is used for the family whose mode age is less than the average life. A
special case of left modal dispersion is the "O" or origin modal curve family. Within
each curve family, numerical designations are used to describe the relative
magnitude of the retirement frequencies at the mode. A "6" indicates that the
retirements are not greatly dispersed from the mode (i.e., high mode frequency)
while a "1" indicates a large dispersion about the mode (i.e., low mode frequency).
For example, a curve with an average life of 30 years and an "L3" dispersion is a
7
moderately dispersed, left modal curve that can be designated as a 30 L3 Curve.
An SQ, or square, survivor curve occurs where no dispersion is present (i.e., units of
common age retire simultaneously).
Most property groups can be closely fitted to one Iowa Curve with a unique
average service life. The blending of judgment concerning current conditions and
future trends along with the matching of historical data permits the depreciation
analyst to make an informed selection of an account's average life and retirement
dispersion pattern.
Life Span Procedure The life span procedure was used for production facilities for which most
components are expected to have a retirement date concurrent with the planned
retirement date of the generating unit. The terminal retirement date refers to the
year that each unit will cease operations. The terminal retirement date, along with
the interim retirement characteristics of the assets that will retire prior to the facility
ceasing operation; describe the pattern of retirement of the assets that comprise a
generating unit. The estimated terminal retirement dates for the various generating
units were determined based on consultation with Company management, financial,
and engineering staff. Those estimated terminal retirement dates are shown in
Appendix D.
Interim Retirement RatesInterim retirement rates were used to model the retirement of individual
assets within primary plant accounts for each generating unit prior to the terminal
retirement of the facility. The life span procedure assumes all assets are
depreciated (straight-line) for the same number of periods and retire at the same
time (the terminal retirement date). Adding interim retirement rates to the procedure
reflects the fact that some of the assets at a power plant will not survive to the end
of the life of the facility and should be depreciated (straight-line) more quickly and
retired earlier than the terminal life of the facility. The goal of interim retirement
rates is to project how many of the assets that are currently in service will retire each
year in the future using historical analysis and judgment. In most of Alliance’s
8
depreciation studies, Iowa curves are used based on an analysis of the historical
retirement pattern of the Generation assets and consultation with Company
personnel. SCE has used interim retirement rates to model this activity in past GRC
proceedings. This methodology has been approved by the CPUC in prior
proceedings and is used in this depreciation study. Interim retirement rates for each
plant account were modeled using a 10 year history of SCE specific experience. By
applying interim retirement rates, recognition is given to the obvious fact that
generating units will have retirements of depreciable property before the end of their
lives.
Although interim retirements have been recognized in the study, interim
additions (i.e. future additions) have been excluded from the study. The estimated
amount of future additions might or might not occur. However, there is no
uncertainty as to whether the full level of interim retirements will happen. The
assets that are being modeled for retirement are already in rate base. Depreciation
rates using interim retirements are known and measurable in the same way that
setting depreciation rates for transmission or distribution property using Iowa Curves
is known and measurable. There is no depreciable asset that is expected to live
forever. All assets at a power plant will retire at some point. Interim retirements
simply model when those retirements will occur in the same way that is done for
transmission or distribution assets.
Simulated Plant Record ProcedureThe Simulated Plant Record Procedure - Balances approach (“SPR”) is one of
the commonly accepted approaches to analyze mortality characteristics of utility
property. SPR was applied to the Transmission, Distribution, and General accounts
due to the unavailability of vintaged transactional data. In this method, an Iowa
Curve and average service life are selected as a starting point of the analysis and its
survivor factors are applied to the actual annual additions to give a sequence of
annual balance totals. These simulated balances are compared with the actual
balances by using both graphical and statistical analysis. Through multiple
comparisons using various bands (i.e. comparing the results of various groupings of
9
specific numbers of years of account balances in the calculation such as the
closeness of fit of 30 years of balances to the calculated balances, 40 years of
balances, etc.), the mortality characteristics (as defined by an average life and Iowa
Curve) that are the best match to the property in the account can be found.
The Conformance Index (“CI”) is one measure used to evaluate various SPR
analyses. CIs are also used to evaluate the "goodness of fit" between the actual
data and the Iowa Curve being referenced. The sum of squares difference (“SSD”)
is a summation of the difference between the calculated balances and the actual
balances for the band or test year being analyzed. This difference is squared and
then summed to arrive at the SSD, where n is the number of years in the test band
as follows:
This calculation can then be used to develop other calculations, which the
analyst feels might give a better indication for the “goodness of fit” for the
representative curve under consideration. The residual measure (“RM”) is the
square root of the average squared differences as developed above. The residual
measure is calculated as follows:
)n
SSD(=RM
The CI is developed from the residual measure and the average observed
plant balances for the band or test year being analyzed. The calculation of
conformance index is shown below:
RMn/Balances=CI i
n1�
The Retirement Experience Index (“REI”) gives an indication of the maturity of
the account and is the percent of the property retired from the oldest vintage in the
band at the end of the test year. Retirement indices range from 0 percent to 100
)BalanceObserved-Balanced(Calculate=SSD 2ii
n1�
10
percent and a REI of 100 percent indicates that a complete curve was used. A REI
less than 100 percent indicates that the survivor curve was truncated at that point.
The originator of the SPR method, Alex Bauhan, suggests ranges of value for the CI
and REI. The relationship for CI proposed by Bauhan is shown below2:
CI Value Over 75 Excellent 50 to 75 Good 25 to 50 Fair Under 25 Poor
The relationship for REI proposed by Bauhan3 is shown below:
REI Value Over 75 Excellent 50 to 75 Good 33 to 50 Fair 17 to 33 Poor 17 and below Valueless
Depreciation analysts have used these measures in analyzing SPR results for
nearly 60 years, since the SPR method was developed. Both the CI and REI
statistics provide the analyst with important information with which to make a
comparison between a band of simulated or calculated balances and the observed
or actual balances in the account being studied.
Statistics are useful in analyzing mortality characteristics of accounts, as well
as determining a range of service lives to be analyzed using the detailed graphical
method. However, these statistics boil all the information down to one, or at most, a
few numbers for comparison. Visual matching through comparison between actual
and calculated balances expands the analysis by permitting the analyst to view
many points of data at a time. The goodness of fit should be visually compared to
plots of other Iowa Curve dispersions and average lives for the selection of the
appropriate curve and life. Detailed information for each account is shown later in
2 Public Utility Depreciation Practices, p. 96. 3 Public Utility Depreciation Practices, p. 97.
11
this study and in workpapers.
JudgmentAny depreciation study requires informed judgment by the analyst conducting
the study. A knowledge of the property being studied, company policies and
procedures, general trends in technology and industry practice, and a sound basis of
understanding depreciation theory are needed to apply this informed judgment.
Judgment was used in areas such as survivor curve modeling and selection,
depreciation method selection, and simulated plant record method analysis.
Judgment is not defined as being used in cases where there are specific, significant
pieces of information that influence the choice of a life or curve. Those cases would
simply be a reflection of specific facts into the analysis. Where there are multiple
factors, activities, actions, property characteristics, statistical inconsistencies,
implications of applying certain curves, property mix in accounts or a multitude of
other considerations that impact the analysis (potentially in various directions),
judgment is used to take all of these factors and synthesize them into a general
direction or understanding of the characteristics of the property. Individually, no one
factor in these cases may have a substantial impact on the analysis, but overall,
may shed light on the utilization and characteristics of assets. Judgment may also
be defined as deduction, inference, wisdom, common sense, or the ability to make
sensible decisions. There is no single correct result from statistical analysis; hence,
there is no answer absent judgment. At the very least for example, any analysis
requires choosing which bands to place more emphasis.
The establishment of appropriate Production interim retirement rates requires
judgment to incorporate the understanding of the operation of the system with the
available accounting information. Selection of life parameters for Transmission,
Distribution, and General Assets using the SPR method also requires judgment.
The appropriateness of lives and curves depends not only on statistical analyses,
but also on how well future retirement patterns will match past retirements.
12
Current applications and trends in use of the equipment also need to be
factored into life and survivor curve choices in order for appropriate mortality
characteristics to be chosen.
Broad Group Depreciation At the request of SCE, consistent with its prior and current practices, this study
continues to use the broad depreciation procedure to group the assets within each
account. After an average service life and dispersion were selected for each
account, those parameters were used to estimate what portion of the surviving
investment of each vintage was expected to retire. A straight-line rate for each
broad group (BG) is calculated by computing a composite remaining life for each
group across all vintages within the group, dividing the remaining investment to be
recovered by the remaining life to find the annual depreciation expense and dividing
the annual depreciation expense by the surviving investment. The resultant rate for
each group is designed to recover all retirements less net salvage when the last unit
retires. The BG procedure recovers net book cost over the life of each account by
averaging many components.
Theoretical Depreciation Reserve The book depreciation reserve was derived from Company records. This
study used a reserve model that relied on a prospective concept relating future
retirement and accrual patterns for property, given current life and salvage
estimates. The theoretical reserve of a group is developed from the estimated
remaining life, total life of the property group, and estimated net salvage. The
theoretical reserve represents the portion of the group cost that would have been
accrued if current experience was used throughout the life of the group for future
depreciation accruals. The computation involves multiplying the vintage balances
within the group by the theoretical reserve ratio for each vintage. The average life
group method requires an estimate of dispersion and service life to establish how
much of each vintage is expected to be retired in each year until all property within
the group is retired. Estimated average service lives and dispersion determine the
amount within each average life group. The straight-line remaining-life theoretical
13
reserve ratio at any given age (RR) is calculated as:
Ratio)SalvageNet-(1*Life)Service(Average
Life)Remaining(Average-1RR =
14
DETAILED DISCUSSION
Depreciation Study Process This depreciation study encompassed four distinct phases. The first phase
involved data collection and field interviews. The second phase was where the
initial data analysis occurred. The third phase was where the information and
analysis was evaluated. Finally, the Fourth phase involved the calculation of
deprecation rates and documenting the corresponding recommendations.
During the Phase I data collection process, historical data was compiled from
continuing property records and general ledger systems. Data was validated for
accuracy by extracting and comparing to multiple financial system sources. Audit of
this data was validated against historical data from prior periods, historical general
ledger sources, and field personnel discussions. This data was reviewed
extensively to put in the proper format for a depreciation study. Further discussion
on data review and adjustment is found in the Salvage Considerations Section of
this study. Also as part of the Phase I data collection process, numerous
discussions were conducted with engineers and field operations personnel to obtain
information that would assist in formulating life and salvage recommendations in this
study. One of the most important elements of performing a proper depreciation
study is to understand how the Company utilizes assets and the environment of
those assets. Interviews with engineering and operations personnel are important
ways to allow the analyst to obtain information that is beneficial when evaluating the
output from the life and net salvage programs in relation to the Company’s actual
asset utilization and environment. Information that was gleaned in these
discussions is found both in the Detailed Discussion of this study in the life analysis
and salvage analysis sections and also in workpapers.
Phase 2 is where the statistical analysis is performed. Phase 2 and 3 overlap
to a significant degree. The detailed property records information is used in Phase 2
to develop observed life tables for life analysis. These tables are visually compared
to industry standard tables to determine historical life characteristics. It is possible
that the analyst would cycle back to this phase based on the evaluation process
15
performed in Phase 3. Net salvage analysis consists of compiling historical salvage
and removal data by functional group to determine values and trends in gross
salvage and removal cost. This information was then carried forward into Phase 3
for the evaluation process.
Phase 3 is the evaluation process which synthesizes analysis, interviews, and
operational characteristics into a final selection of asset lives and net salvage
parameters. The historical analysis from Phase 2 is further enhanced by the
incorporation of recent or future changes in the characteristics or operations of
assets that were revealed in Phase 1. Phases 2 and 3 allow the depreciation
analyst to validate the asset characteristics as seen in the accounting transactions
with actual Company operational experience.
Finally, Phase 4 involved the calculation of accrual rates, making
recommendations and documenting the conclusions in a final report. The
calculation of accrual rates is found in Appendix A. Recommendations for the
various accounts are contained within the Detailed Discussion of this report. The
depreciation study flow diagram shown as Figure 14 documents the steps used in
conducting this study. Depreciation Systems5, documents the same basic
processes in performing a depreciation study which are: Statistical analysis,
evaluation of statistical analysis, discussions with management, forecast
assumptions, and document recommendations.
4 Public Utility Finance & Accounting, A Reader (Modified) 5 Depreciation Systems, Wolf & Fitch, 1994, pg. 289.
16
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON DEPRECIATION STUDY
PROCESS
Figure 1
17
Depreciation Rate CalculationAnnual depreciation expense amounts for the depreciable accounts of
Southern California Edison were calculated by the straight-line method, broad group
procedure, and remaining-life technique. With this approach, remaining lives were
calculated according to standard broad group expectancy techniques, using the Iowa
Survivor Curves noted in the calculation. For each plant account, the difference
between the surviving investment, adjusted for estimated net salvage, and the
allocated book depreciation reserve, was divided by the average remaining life to
yield the annual depreciation expense. These calculations are shown in Appendix A.
Remaining Life CalculationThe establishment of appropriate average service lives and retirement
dispersions for each account within a functional group was based on engineering
judgment that incorporated available accounting information analyzed using the SPR
Balances method. After establishment of appropriate average service lives and
retirement dispersion, remaining life was computed for each account. Theoretical
depreciation reserve with zero net salvage was calculated using theoretical reserve
ratios as defined in the theoretical reserve portion of the General Discussion section.
The difference between plant balance and theoretical reserve was then spread over
the depreciation accruals. Remaining life computations are found for each account
in workpapers.
18
Production Depreciation Calculation ProcessAnnual depreciation expense amounts for the Steam, Hydraulic and Other
Production accounts were calculated by the straight line, remaining life procedure. In
a whole life representation, the annual accrual rate is computed by the following
equation:
LifeServiceAveragePercent)SalvageNet(100%RateAccrualAnnual �
�
In the case of steam production facilities with a terminal life and interim
retirement curve, each vintage within the group has a unique average service life and
remaining life determined by computing the area under the truncated Iowa Curve
coupled with the group’s terminal life.
Use of the remaining life depreciation system adds a self-correcting
mechanism, which accounts for any differences between theoretical and book
depreciation reserve over the remaining life of the group. For each vintage modeled
with an interim retirement curve and terminal life,
(i)Survivors(i)AgeofRight the toCurveSurvivor Under AreaLife(i)Remaining � , and
zeroageatSurvivorsCurveSurvivor Under AreaLifeServiceAverage �
With the straight line, remaining life, broad group system using Iowa Curves,
composite remaining lives were calculated by computing a direct weighted average
of each remaining life by vintage within the group. Within each group (plant account/
unit), for each plant account, the difference between the surviving investment,
adjusted for estimated net salvage, and the allocated book depreciation reserve, was
divided by the composite remaining life to yield the annual depreciation expense as
noted in this equation.
LifeRemaining%)SalvageNet(1*CostOriginalReserveBookCostOriginalExpenseonDepreciatiAnnual ���
�
In this equation, the net salvage percent represents future net salvage.
19
Within a group, the sum of the group annual depreciation expense
amounts, as a percentage of the depreciable original cost investment summed,
gives the annual depreciation rate depreciation rate as shown below:
�
��
CostOriginal
ExpenseonDepreciatiAnnualRateonDepreciatiAnnual
These calculations are shown in Appendix A. The calculations of the
theoretical depreciation reserve values and the corresponding remaining life
calculations are shown in the workpapers. Book depreciation reserves were
reallocated from specific functional groups to a plant account/unit level basis within
that specific functional group and theoretical reserve computations were used to
compute remaining life for each group.
Other Accounts Calculation ProcessAnnual depreciation expense amounts for accounts other than production
were calculated by the straight line, remaining life procedure.
In a whole life representation, the annual accrual rate is computed by the
following equation,
LifeServiceAveragePercent)SalvageNet(100%RateAccrualAnnual �
�
Use of the remaining life depreciation system adds a self-correcting
mechanism, which accounts for any differences between theoretical and book
depreciation reserve over the remaining life of the group. With the straight line,
remaining life, average life group system using Iowa Curves, composite remaining
lives were calculated according to standard broad group expectancy techniques,
noted in the formula below:
�� �
�AccrualAnnualLifeWhole
ReservelTheoreticaCostOriginalLifeRemainingComposite
For each plant account, the difference between the surviving investment,
adjusted for estimated net salvage, and the allocated book depreciation reserve, was
divided by the composite remaining life to yield the annual depreciation expense as
noted in this equation.
20
LifeRemainingComposite%)SalvageNet(1*Cost)(OriginalReserveBookCostOriginalExpenseonDepreciatiAnnual ���
�
In this equation, the Net Salvage% represents future net salvage.
Within a group, the sum of the group annual depreciation expense amounts,
as a percentage of the depreciable original cost investment summed, gives the
annual depreciation rate as shown below:
�
��
CostOriginal
ExpenseonDepreciatiAnnualRateonDepreciatiAnnual
These calculations are shown in Appendix A. The calculations of the
theoretical depreciation reserve values and the corresponding remaining life
calculations are shown in workpapers. Book depreciation reserves at the plant
account level were used for individual accounts, and the theoretical reserve
computation was used to compute a composite remaining life for each account.
Terminal Retirement DateThe terminal retirement date refers to the year in which a generating unit will
be retired from service. The retirement can be for a number of reasons such as the
physical end of the generating unit but will generally be driven by economic
retirement of the unit. SCE’ personnel provided their estimated retirement dates for
each generating unit. These dates are based on the current plans and investment in
the generating units. Retirement dates for generating units can be found in Appendix
D. As new investment is committed to these units or decisions made that units are
not economically viable, these lives may change. At this time, these retirement
dates are the best estimate of the current lives remaining in the generating assets.
Interim Retirement Rates Interim retirement rates were computed by analyzing data from 2003-2012,
Data was segregated into functional groups: coal, nuclear, hydro and other. For
each functional group and plant account, Company history showing plant balance,
retirements, gross salvage and cost of removal was compiled by plant account. By
examining those trends, interim retirement rates and interim net salvage rates were
21
developed by function and account. Those results were applied to each generating
unit. Those results are provided in workpapers.
SCE’s historical practice considers the interim retirement rate adjustment first
by estimating the future level of interim retirements as a percent of the plant balance
(i.e., an interim retirement rate). The estimate of the IR rate is made by analyzing
the historical levels of interim retirements. Judgment is used in selecting IR rates,
just as is done with interim retirement curves. To add the IR rate to the computation
of the depreciation accrual rate, the IR rate is applied to the current plant balance
over the remaining life of the plant to determine the necessary adjustment to the
overall remaining life of the generating station. For example, if a generating unit has
an 11 year remaining life and an IR rate of 1.4 percent per year, then about 15
percent of the current plant balance would retire as an interim retirement (11 years
times 1.4 percent per year and the remaining 85 percent would retire as a final
retirement.
A graph in the interim retirement curve with these parameters is shown below.
INTERIM RETIREMENT CURVE WITH
11 YEAR REMAINING LIFE SPAN AND 1.4% IR.
% Surviving
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Years
Avg. Life = Rem. Life Span - IR Adjustment10.2 yrs = 11.0 yrs - 0.8 yrs
IR Adjustment
* Remaining Life Span = 11 years; IR Rate = 1.4%.
22
The average life of the group is equal to the life span adjusted for the shorter
life of the interim retirements. The remaining life adjustment is calculated as follows:
Life Span: Remaining Life Adjustment
Remaining Life Adjustment
Remaining Life Span x IR Rate Remaining
Life Span 2
0.8 Years 11 Years x 1.4% 11 Years
The remaining life used to compute the depreciation accrual is decremented to be
10.2 years.
When analyzing a large pool of assets like power plant accounts, these
shorter lived items can be accurately modeled together statistically. Thus, given that
interim retirements will occur, this statistical analysis enables one to measure the
interim retirement rates applicable to property groups. Some examples of “long
lived” property that are projected to last until the retirement of a unit are: Roads,
Bridges, Railroad track, Intake/Discharge Structures, Structural Steel (and misc.
steel), Cooling towers, Buildings, Cranes, Dams, Ponds, Basins, Canals,
Foundations, Stacking and Reclaiming equipment, Surge Silos, Crushers, Transfer
Towers, Fly Ash and Bottom Ash Systems, Precipitators, Bag Houses, Stack,
Turbine (except blades) and Piping, Generator Cooling System, Vacuum Systems,
Generator and Main Leads, Station Transformers, Conduits and Ducts, Station
Grounding System, Start-up Diesel Generators, and Stores Equipment.
Some examples of “shorter lived” property that are projected to retire prior to
the retirement of the unit are: fences, signs, sprinkler systems, security systems,
Intake screens, roofs, cooling fan units, air compressors, fuel oil heaters, heating,
ventilation and air conditioners, piping, motors, pumps, conveyors, pulverizers, air
preheaters, economizers, control equipment, feed water heaters, boiler feed water
pumps, forced draft (FD) and induced draft (ID) fans, scrubbers, continuous
emissions monitoring systems (CEM), turbine blades and buckets, turbine plant
instruments, condensers, control equipment, station service switchgear, and
universal power supply (UPS) batteries.
23
Life Estimates
PRODUCTION PLANT The only Generation life span changed from the 2012 GRC is the Palo Verde
Nuclear plant. The Company was granted a 20 year life extension for each of the
Palo Verde units. All other generation life spans are unchanged from the 2012 GRC.
For Hydro plants, individual life spans for each generating station are used to
develop a composite life. For Nuclear, Hydraulic and Other Production Plant study
recommendations will be based on a life span analysis using IR rates which were
explained above. The following plants/units will not be addressed in this study:
Mohave, Four Corners, San Onofre, and Mountainview 1 and 2 Decommissioning.
PRODUCTION
The table below shows the total life for each plant.
GENERATING UNIT LIFE SPANS
Plant 2012-2014
Authorized
2015-2017
Proposed
Nuclear- Palo Verde 16.1 Years 33.5 Years
Hydro Various Various
Other- Pebbly Beach 45 Years 45 Years
Other- Mountainview 30 Years 30 Years
Other- Peakers 25 Years 25 Years
Other- Solar
Photovoltaic
20 Years 20 Years
A discussion of the each generating station occurs below.
NuclearSCE has two nuclear locations, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
(SONGS) and Palo Verde. SCE announced the permanent shutdown of SONGS
units 2 and 3 in June of 2013. As a result of this determination, SCE is addressing
proposed recovery of the remaining asset separate from this depreciation study.
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station’s NRC licenses for units 1, 2, and 3 expire on
24
December 31, 2044, December 9, 2045 and March 25, 2047 respectively. These
units each received 20 year life extension from the original NRC license. On a
composite basis, the plant has a 33.5 year remaining life.
PALO VERDE REMAINING LIFE
ACCT Life Span
Remaining Life
IR Rate Avg. Remaining
Life
321 33.5 0.00% 33.5
322 33.5 0.00% 33.5
323 33.5 0.00% 33.5
324 33.5 0.00% 33.5
325 33.5 0.00% 33.5
Hydro For Hydro facilities, SCE has 76 different generating units at 33 different
locations. All but five of SCE’s hydro investment has a FERC license in place to
determine the life span. The licenses have a variety of termination dates – from
expired (in the process of being relicensed) to 2046. The total life span of SCE’s
current license periods range between 29 and 50 years. Recently, FERC has issued
renewals with license periods averaging 39.33 years. There are no guarantees that
the FERC will continue to grant the company licenses going forward or that the
generating units will continue to be economic. The individual components making up
a generating station will continue to wear out, retire, and need to be replaced.
Consequently, this study proposes that the hydro generation plant be depreciated
over the remaining life spans associated with the individual FERC licenses.6 For
generating stations within five years of license termination, however, this study
proposes that the life spans be extended by the estimated license life in its current
FERC license applications.7
6 In the case of the 1 percent of hydro plant not covered by a FERC license, SCE applies the average life determined for the plant that is covered by FERC license.7 The average application license period is 45 years. The exception to this life span extension is the amortization period for the hydro relicensing costs. These relicensing costs are only amortized over the associated license period for which they were spent.
25
HYDRO REMAINING LIFE
ACCT Life Span
Remaining Life
IR Rate Avg.
Remaining Life
331 41.4 0.20% 39.6
332 35.1 0.05% 34.8
333 38.4 0.25% 36.4
334 33.3 0.40% 30.6
335 39.8 0.25% 37.6
336 34.8 0.50% 31.3
Pebbly Beach The Pebbly Beach generating station consists of six diesel generating units,
ranging in capacity from 1.0 MW to 2.8 MW. SCE engineers estimate that the
average life span of these generating units is 45 years. This estimate is premised on
the fact that the diesel generators require a major overhaul after 140,000 operating
hours (about 22 years assuming a 75 percent capacity factor). After two such
operating periods, obsolescence increased operating and maintenance costs, and
reduced reliability can affect the retirement of these generators. Another retirement
factor that can affect this generation is the need for capacity upgrades requiring
more space-efficient generation given the limited space at Pebbly Beach. The
weighted average age of the diesel generators is 20 years. There have been
insufficient interim retirements to estimate an IR rate for this plant; consequently both
the remaining life span and the average remaining life are 18.7 years, as shown
below.
PEBBLY BEACH REMAINING LIFE
ACCT Life Span
Remaining Life
IR Rate Avg. Remaining Life
341 18.7 0.00% 18.7
342 18.7 0.00% 18.7
343 18.7 0.00% 18.7
344 18.7 0.00% 18.7
26
345 18.7 0.00% 18.7
346 18.7 0.00% 18.7
Mountainview Mountainview Units 3 and 4 currently has a 30-year life span. Since the plant
is 7 years old, this leaves a remaining life of 23 years as part of the Purchase Power
Agreement (PPA). At this time, however, SCE is not estimating interim retirements to
estimate an IR rate for this plant. Consequently both the remaining life span and the
average remaining life are 23.0 years. The remaining life is 23 years, as shown
below:
MOUNTAINVIEW REMAINING LIFE
ACCT Life Span
Remaining Life
IR Rate Avg. Remaining
Life
341 23.0 0.00% 23.0
342 23.0 0.00% 23.0
343 23.0 0.00% 23.0
344 23.0 0.00% 23.0
345 23.0 0.00% 23.0
346 23.0 0.00% 23.0
PeakersIt is estimated that the Peakers will have a life span of approximately 25
years. SCE currently has no retirement data for Peakers’ generation. At this time
this study is not adjusting remaining life for estimated interim retirements until more
information is available. Given that the Peakers were in-service mid-2007, the
remaining life is 20.6 years as of year-end 2012, as shown below.
PEAKERS REMAINING LIFE
ACCT Life Span
Remaining
Life
IR Rate Avg.
Remaining
Life
341 20.6 0.00% 20.6
27
342 20.6 0.00% 20.6
343 20.6 0.00% 20.6
344 20.6 0.00% 20.6
345 20.6 0.00% 20.6
346 20.6 0.00% 20.6
Solar Photovoltaic It is estimated that Solar Photovoltaic has a life span of approximately 20
years. SCE currently has no retirement data for Solar Photovoltaic generation. At this
time this study is not adjusting remaining life for estimated interim retirements until
more information is available. The remaining life for Solar Photovoltaic assets is
18.6 years as of year-end 2012, as shown below.
SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC REMAINING LIFE
ACCT Life Span Remaining Life IR Rate Avg. Remaining Life
341 18.6 0.00% 18.6
343 18.6 0.00% 18.6
345 18.6 0.00% 18.6
�
28
TRANSMISSION and DISTRIBUTION PLANT
Transmission Accounts, FERC Accounts 352-359
FERC Account 352 Transmission Structures & Improvements (proposed 55
year life with a S3 dispersion curve) This account includes structures, fencing, containment, security and similar
assets found in a transmission substation. The current investment balance is $377
million. The approved life and curve is 55 years with a S2 dispersion curve. A 55 S3
curve is ranked at or near the top for the full band (i.e. using all available account
balances in the calculation), 60, 50, 40 and 30 years with CIs and REIs in the
excellent range. Indications in shorter life runs show changing characteristics that
produce flat curves that are anomalous with the type of property in the account.
Since the existing life is 55 years, indications from the widest bands were used to
predict future life characteristics for this account. Although life characteristics are
specific to individual companies where many factors affect the life, the dispersion
characteristics can be of use in understanding the retirement pattern generally
applicable to assets in a specific account. For that reason, a graph based on 2012
FERC Form 1 information showing the distribution of industry dispersion patterns is
shown below.
Although an R3 dispersion curve is predominant in the industry data, an S3 curve
has many similar characteristics of the R3 curve and was chosen due to the better
match of SCE specific results for the account and the 55 year life exhibited by the S3
curve is consistent with expectations for the life of the account. Based on SPR runs,
industry data, and Company experience, retaining the 55 year life is proposed for this
29
account with a move from a S2 dispersion curve to a S3 dispersion curve. A graph
of the actual versus simulated balances for this account is shown below.
30
FERC Account 353 Transmission Station Equipment (proposed 41 year life
with a R1 dispersion curve) This account contains a wide variety of transmission substation equipment,
from transformers and circuit breakers to switchgear, as well as shorter-lived
electronic equipment. The current investment balance is $3.982 billion. The current
approved life is 40 years with a R1 dispersion curve. In reviewing SPR results, the
R1 curve is ranked near the top from the widest band (i.e. using all available account
balances in the calculation) down to through 30 years. In 20 year bands, the life
moves to approximately 42 years, but the shorter band contains too little information
related to this long-lived account to support a further move to a 42 year life. In
addition, the most recent 10 year band shows a shorter life, clustering around 32
years for the highest rank curves. These counter indications of changing life are
reflective of bands with less information embedded in the calculation. A graph
showing the distribution of industry dispersion patterns is shown below.
A low to medium mode R curve is predominant within in the electric utility industry.
The SPR bands from 30 years and longer support a 41 year life with R1 dispersion.
These signs are consistent with depreciation study results in the 2012 GRC. The
various asset types in the account would be expected to have lives ranging from 15
31
years to 40 years or more. From the information available, the recent retirement mix
of long-lived versus shorter-lived assets is comparable to the mix of assets in the
account. A graph of the actual versus simulated balances for this account is shown
below. Based on SPR bands, input from Company personnel, and judgment
regarding the asset groups in this account, this study recommends moving out to a
41-year life with a R1 dispersion curve for this account.
32
FERC Account 354 Transmission Towers & Fixtures (proposed 65 year life with
a R5 dispersion curve) This account consists of Transmission towers and fixtures, which are used to
transmit electricity at a voltage of 69 kV and above. The current investment balance
is $772 million. The current approved life is the 65 years with a R5 dispersion curve.
The R5 is ranked well across all bands with the S6 ranked slightly higher over the
last few years. As the analysis moves from the longer to shorter bands, the life is
increasing slightly. For example, longer bands of the S6 dispersion exhibited a 60
year life and moved to a 65 in more recent bands. A graph showing the distribution
of industry dispersion patterns is shown below.
A high moded R3 or R4 curve is predominant within in the electric utility
industry. The S6 dispersion which ranked well in many bands is not used by any
utility reporting depreciation parameters.
The current analysis is consistent with depreciation study results in the 2012 GRC.
A graph of the actual versus simulated balances for this account is shown below.
Based on SPR bands, input from Company personnel, and judgment regarding the
asset groups in this account, this study recommends retaining a 65 -year life with a
R5 dispersion curve for this account.
33
34
FERC Account 355 Transmission Poles & Fixtures (proposed 45 year life with a
R1 dispersion curve) This account consists of Transmission poles and fixtures, which are used to
transmit electricity at a voltage of 69 kV and above. The current investment balance
is $604 million. The current approved life is 50 years with a R1 dispersion curve.
The highest rank curve in all bands was R0.5 which is much flatter than the asset
characteristics would indicate. Another curve which ranked well across all bands
was the 45 R1. A graph showing the distribution of dispersion patterns is shown
below.
A low to medium mode R curve is predominant within in the electric utility
industry. The top ranked R0.5 curve is used by only one company out of the 81
entities reporting depreciation parameters.
The pole loading inspection program initiated by the Company will decrease
the life of many of the existing poles in the account – the program will especially
affect the transmission category.
The Company introduced through-boring in early 2000’s. The introduction of
through-boring program for poles may eventually increase the life of this account but
currently is still applied to a very small subset of the total 1.5 million poles on the
system. The process may begin to affect the life of the account as a larger
population of through-bored poles comes onto the system and creates an upwards
pressure on the average life of the account as a whole. Based on the SPR analysis,
input from Company personnel, and judgment regarding the asset groups in this
35
account, this study recommends moving to a 45-year life with a R1 dispersion curve
for this account.
36
FERC Account 356 Transmission Overhead Conductor & Devices (proposed 56
year life with a R4 dispersion curve) This account consists of Transmission overhead conductors, which are used
to transmit electricity at voltages of 69 kV and above. The current investment
balance is $706 million. The current approved life is 50 years with a R4 dispersion
curve. In most bands, low modal curves were the top ranked curves by CI, but the
REI for those curves was below Bauhan’s recommended range. The R2 and R3
curves produced an acceptable REI, but the life indications are well beyond
expectations for these types of assets. A graph showing the distribution of industry
dispersion patterns is shown below.
Among the curves that produced acceptable REIs within reasonable life
expectations were the R4, R5 and S5. Industry data for this account shows that
most companies use a medium to high mode R curve for this account.
SCE specific data shows a life consistent with expectations and a somewhat
longer life than approved in the 2012 GRC. Based on the SPR analysis, input from
Company personnel, and judgment regarding the asset groups in this account, this
study recommends moving to a 56-year life with a R4 dispersion curve for this
account. A graph of actual versus simulated balances is shown below.
37
38
FERC Account 357 Transmission Underground Conduit (proposed 55 year life
with a R3 dispersion curve) This account consists of underground conduit and vaults. The current
investment balance is $49 million. The current approved life is 55 years with a R3
dispersion curve. Various SPR bands show that the L4 is a good curve fit but not
used often. The current R3 curve produces lives that are much longer than rational.
R4 is a possibility but has a low REI. After considering the 57 L4, that curve was
compared to industry norms. The L4 is not a good pattern for this type of property
and has only a good REI, not excellent. Lives with a high REI are reflecting
reductions from the approved life which, based on experience with other utilities and
no indications from the field of changes in process which would tend to decrease the
life, is not reasonable. Since there are few retirements, SPR is not giving reliable life
indications. A graph showing the distribution industry dispersion patterns is shown
below.
Industry data for this account shows that most companies use a high moded
curve such as an R4 curve for this account.
Given the limited data available for analysis, this study recommends retaining the
currently approved 55 year life with a R3 dispersion curve for this account. A graph
of actual versus simulated balances is shown below.
39
40
FERC Account 358 Transmission Underground Conductor & Devices
(proposed 40 year with a R2.5 dispersion curve) This account consists of underground conductor. The lines are low pressure
oil filled; paper wrapped 500 MCM copper cable. The currently approved curve for
this account is a 40 R2.5. The current investment balance is $208 million. A 40 L2
curve ranks highly in many bands, but other curves produce a much better REI. The
next highest ranked curve is a 34 R4. The 34-year life is shorter than expectations
for these types of assets. The next best curve than produced a life closer to
expectations was a 38 R2.5. A graph showing the distribution of dispersion patterns
is shown below.
An R3 or medium mode R curve is the predominant dispersion used by most
electric utilities.
Since retirement data is limited for this account and no reason can be identified for a
shorter life, this study recommends retention of the existing 40 R2.5 curve for this
account. A graph of actual versus simulated balances is shown below.
41
42
FERC Account 359 Transmission Roads and Trails (proposed 60 year with a
SQ dispersion curve) This account consists of roads and trails. The current investment balance is
$43 million. The current approved life is 60 years with a SQ dispersion curve. Few
assets have been retired, rendering SPR results of little validity. Nearly All REIs fall
in the valueless range and the lives produced by SPR were well beyond
expectations. In most bands, low modal curves were the top ranked curves by CI,
but the REI for those curves was below Bauhan’s recommended range. A graph
showing the distribution of dispersion patterns is shown below.
The predominant dispersions are high modal curves as shown below.
Based on analysis of Company data, this study concludes there is insufficient
information to change the current life and retirement dispersion for this account. This
study recommends retention of a 60-year life with a SQ dispersion curve for this
account. A graph of actual versus simulated balances is shown below.
43
44
Distribution Accounts, FERC Accounts 361.0-373.0
FERC Account 361.0 Structures & Improvements (proposed 42 year life with a
R2.5 dispersion) This grouping contains facilities ranging from fencing and other structures
found in distribution substations. The current investment balance is $437 million for
this account. The approved curve and life is a 40 S2.5. For the 50-year, 60-year
and full bands, the top ranked curve is a 40 R3 with the next highest curve being a
42 R2.5. In those bands, the CIs are in the good range, not in the excellent. All
REIs are excellent. For bands of 30 and 40 years, the 42 R2.5 curve becomes the
highest ranked with the 40 R3 curve ranking second. The shorter bands of 10 and
20 years show S-curves as the highest rank. The 10- and 20-year bands are too
short compared to the currently approved life to use as the basis of a life change for
this account. Within in the utility industry, a mid-moded R curve is the predominant
dispersion type as shown below.
Based on SPR life analysis and industry input, this study recommends a 42-year life
with a R2.5 dispersion pattern. A graph of the actual versus simulated balances for
this account is shown below.
45
46
FERC Account 362.0 Station Equipment (proposed 45 year life with a R1.5
dispersion) This grouping contains a wide variety of distribution substation equipment,
from transformers and circuit breakers to switchgear, as well as shorter-lived
electronic equipment. The current balance is $1.761 billion for this account. The
existing approved life is 45 years with a R1.5 dispersion curve. In bands for 30 years
and longer, the CI for this account is either poor or fair. For those bands, the top
ranked curves are low moded L’s, S’s and R’s. The predominant dispersion pattern
within the utility industry is a mid-mode R curve.
The R1.5 dispersion curve produces a 44-45 year life in bands from 30 to full in
width. Narrow bands of 10 to 20 years produce many curves the have an excellent
CI and REI, but the width of those bands is less than one fourth or one half a life
cycle for this account. The various asset types in the account would be expected to
have lives ranging from 15 years to 40 years or more. From the information
available, the recent retirement mix of long-lived versus shorter-lived assets is
reasonably comparable to the mix of assets in the account. That data is insufficient
to support a change in life for this account. Based on SPR analysis and review of
industry trends in dispersion, this study retains the currently approved 45-year life
with a R1.5 dispersion curve. A graph of the actual versus simulated balances for
47
this account is shown below.
48
FERC Account 364.0 Poles, Towers, & Fixtures (proposed 45 year life with a
R0.5 dispersion) This account contains poles and towers of various material types: wood,
concrete, and steel. Most of the poles across the system are made of wood. The
height of these assets can range generally from 35 feet to 70 feet with the prevalent
sizes being 45 feet and up. The current balance is $1.655 billion for this account.
The approved average service life and dispersion are 45 years with a R1 dispersion
pattern. In bands for 30 years and longer, the CI for this account is either poor or
fair. For those bands, the top ranked curves are low moded L’s, S’s and R’s. The
predominant dispersion pattern within the utility industry is a low to mid-mode R
curve.
While the 10 and 20 year bands produce curves with excellent REIs and CIs, the
bands are too narrow to rely upon to support a change in an account with a current
life of 45 years. In bands of 50 years and more, the R0.5 curve is one of the top
three ranked curves with a life of 45 years. In these wider bands, the R0.5 ranks
higher than the Company’s currently approved R1 dispersion. The R1 dispersion
shows a life of 41 years during that period. The pole loading inspection program
initiated by the Company will decrease the life of some of the existing poles in this
account – the program will affect distribution less than the transmission category.
The Rule 20 undergrounding program will also have the effect of decreasing the life
of the account. In addition, the Company no longer repairs wood poles. The
49
introduction of through-boring program for poles in the early 2000’s may eventually
increase the average life of poles in this account but currently is still applied to a very
small subset of the total 1.5 million poles on the system. The process will begin to
affect the life of the account as a larger population of through-bored poles comes
onto the system. With the significant downward life pressures reflected in the
programs mentioned above, any reflection of an increase in life for the account
based on the initiation of the through-boring process is premature. Based on the
SPR result, judgment and the above discussion, this study recommends retaining the
45-year life and moving a slight shift to a R0.5 dispersion. A graph of the actual
versus simulated balances for this account is shown below.
50
FERC Account 365.0 Overhead Conductor & Devices (proposed 45 year life
with a R0.5 dispersion) This account consists of overhead conductor of various thickness, as well as
various switches and reclosers. The current investment balance is $1.196 billion for
this account. The approved rate assumes an average service life of 45 years with a
R0.5 dispersion curve. For bands of 50 years and longer, the top ranked curve is a
45 year life with a R0.5 dispersion. In narrower bands, the R0.5 curve ranks second
below the L0. With the Rule 20 undergrounding program creating premature
retirements in this account, the longer life exhibited by the L0 curve, and the
characteristics of the curve itself as compared to the assets in the account, an L0
curve does not appear reasonable for this account. Within the utility industry, a low
to mid mode R curve is the predominant selection. Since the life of this account is
currently 45 years, indications from the widest bands were used to select
depreciation parameters for this account.
Based on the SPR results, this study recommends retaining the 45-year life and with
a R0.5 dispersion. A graph of the actual versus simulated balances for this account
is shown below.
51
52
FERC Account 366.0 Underground Conduit (proposed 59 year life with a R3
dispersion) This account consists of conduit, duct banks, vaults, manholes, and ventilating
system equipment. The investment balance is $1.390 billion for this account. The
existing rate is based on a life estimate of 55 years with a R3 dispersion pattern. In
the widest bands that would be consistent with indication of life of this account, the
top ranked curves produce REI’s that are very low. The CI’s are in the excellent
range for most of the curves shown in the full and 60 years band. In all bands, the
highest ranked curve that produces an REI at or near 100 is the R3 dispersion. Only
in the most recent bands does the life move to 60 years. For the widest bands, the
59 R3 is the top ranked curve with an REI close to 100. As can be seen in the chart
below, a mid-range R dispersion is the predominant choice for other utilities across
the United States.
Based on the SPR results, this study recommends moving to a 59-year life and with
an R3 dispersion. A graph of the actual versus simulated balances for this account
is shown below.
53
54
FERC Account 367.0 Underground Conductor & Devices (proposed 42 year life
with a R1 dispersion) This account consists of underground distribution conductor, switches, and
switchgear. The balance is $4.402 billion for this account. The currently approved
life is 40 years with an R1 dispersion curve. For all bands, the top ranked curves are
R0.5, L0 and R1. The REI for the curves is approximately 97, 87, and 100 for the
R0.5, L0, and R1 respectively. Both the R0.5 and L0 are used by only one utility
each across the industry and shown in the chart below.
The R1 curve shows a life of 42 years across all bands except the narrowest 10 year
band where the life lengthens slightly to 43. Based on the SPR results, this study
recommends moving to a 42-year life and retaining the R1 dispersion. A graph of
the actual versus simulated balances for this account is shown below.
55
56
FERC Account 368.0 Line Transformers (proposed 33 year life with a R1
dispersion)This account consists of line transformers, regulators, and capacitors. The
investment balance is $3.022 billion for this account. The currently approved life for
this account is 30 years with a R1.5 dispersion pattern. For all bands, the top ranked
curves are R0.5, L0 and R1. The REIs are close to 100 for each curve with low CIs.
Since the L0 curve is not widely used in the industry and would not reflect the as
well expected retirement pattern of these types of assets, the choices focused on the
R0.5 and R1 curves. The R0.5 curve shows a 36-year life, while the R1 curve
demonstrates a 33-year life. The industry reflects a low to mid mode R curve as
being the predominant choices in the utility industry.
Given the low CIs for both curves and the lives for nearly all other curves being in the
high 20‘s or low 30’s, the longer life and flatter characteristics of the R0.5 curve are
not as appropriate for this account. The R1 dispersion is recommended along with
moving out to a 33-year life for this account. A graph of the actual versus simulated
balances for this account is shown below.
57
58
FERC Account 369 Services (proposed 42 year life with a R2 dispersion curve) This account includes overhead and underground services with a balance of $1.172
billion. The currently approved life for this account is 40 years with an R2 dispersion curve.
For all bands except the 10 year band, the top ranked curves are very flat curves. The
REIs are close to 100 for each curve. However, the CIs for this account are in the all in the
Poor category until the shorter bands where they only move to the Fair range. In addition,
most of the curves exhibit a much shorter life than the top few ranked curves and the
predominance of very flat dispersions ranked at the top for this type of account would
indicate changing life characteristics more so than valid characteristics of the assets. The
currently approved curve is the R2 curve which exhibits a 42-year life. The R2 curve is the
predominant curve for this account based on the industry data. Using SCE data, the R2
curve reflects a modest 2 year increase which can be considered acceptable even with the
low CIs exhibited in the SPR analysis.
The current depreciation study recommendation is to move to a R2 dispersion curve
and increase life to 42 years. A graph of the actual versus simulated balances for
59
this account is shown below.
60
FERC Account 370.0 Meters – Smart Connect (proposed 20 year life with a
R3 dispersion) This account includes smart connect meters with a balance of $889 million.
The currently approved life for this account is 20 years with an R3 dispersion curve.
These assets have been installed since 2007. There is insufficient history to analyze
the data using SPR analysis. The current life was established through information
on battery life indicated by the manufacturer. Other utilities use a low to mid-range R
dispersion curve for this account as can be seen from the chart below.
Based on judgment, this study recommends retaining the currently approved 20-
year life with an R3 dispersion for this account.
FERC Account 370.0 Meters – Legacy (proposed amortization period
through 2017) This account includes all distribution legacy meters that are being phased
out. The current balance is $87 million in plant with a net book value of $312
million. These assets are being allocated over a 6 year life as approved in the
2012 GRC (2012-2017). The current recovery period through 2017 is retained.
61
FERC Account 373.0 Street Lighting (proposed 40 year life with a L0.5
dispersion)This account includes all distribution streetlights, conductor, conduit,
luminaire, and standards. The current investment balance is $754 million for this
account. The currently approved life for this account is 40 years with an L0.5
dispersion curve. The top ranked curves are low modal curves in the R, L, or S
dispersion families which given the variety of assets in the account is reasonable.
The CIs for all but the 10 year band are in the fair or poor range. The industry
showed a low mode R0.5, R1, or L0 curve as being the predominant choices in the
utility industry.
Given the low conformance indices and input from company personnel, this study
recommends retaining the 40-year life and with a L0.5 dispersion. A graph of the
actual versus simulated balances for this account is shown below.
62
63
GENERAL PLANT
General Accounts, FERC Accounts 390.0
FERC Account 390.0 Structures & Improvements (proposed 38 year life with a
R3 dispersion) This account includes the cost of general structures and improvements used
for utility service. There is a balance of $843 million in this account. The approved
life for this account is 40 years and a R2.5 dispersion. The top ranked curves in the
most recent 40 year and longer bands are S6, S5, L5, and R3. The high modal
curves show lives of 30 years which are shorter than would be expected for this type
of property. An R3 curve ranks high across all bands and reflects a 38 year life with
a reasonably good CI in the shorter bands and a 100 percent REI.
Based on the SPR results and the types of assets in the account (i.e. a mix of
long-lived buildings and shorter-lived components of the buildings), this study
recommends moving to a 38-year life and with a R3 dispersion. A graph of the
actual versus simulated balances for this account is shown below.
64
65
Forecast Service Lives – Summary Some categories of plant neither lend themselves to statistical analysis nor
belong in the life span category. These plant assets include most general plant (i.e.,
FERC Accounts 391 - 398), intangible plant (e.g., software, radio frequencies, etc.),
and easements. A determination of a service lives was made through discussions
with SCE engineers familiar with the assets, consideration of prior company
procedure, and familiarity with industry practice.
After review, this study uses the same lives approved in the 2012 GRC for
FERC Accounts 302-303 and 391-398 with the exception of certain subaccounts in
Account 397. The Table below shows the forecast depreciation service lives for
general and intangible plant accounts. The Table compares this study’s proposed
depreciation rates to authorized service lives.
66
General and Intangible Forecast Service Lives
AccountNo. Account Description
2012–2014Authorized(Years)
2015-2017Proposed(Years)
General Plant
391.1 Office Furniture 20 20 391.2 Personal Computers 5 5 391.3 Mainframe Computers 5 5 391.4 DDSMS-Power Mgmt System Composite8 Composite 391.5 Office Equipment 5 5 391.6 Duplicating Equipment 5 5 391.7 PC Software 5 5 393 Stores Equipment 20 20 394 Tools & Work Equipment 10 10 395 Laboratory Equipment 15 15 397 Telecommunication Equipment Composite9 Composite 398 Misc Power Plant Equipment 20 20
Intangibles 302.020 Hydro Relicensing Various Various 303.640 Radio Frequency 40 40 302.050 Miscellaneous Intangibles 20 20 303.105 Capitalized Software – 5 year 5 5 303.707 Capitalized Software – 7 year 7 7 303.210 Capitalized Software – 10 year 10 10 303.315 Capitalized Software – 15 year 15 15
Easements 350 Transmission Easements 60 60 360 Distribution Easements 60 60 389 General Easements 60 60
8 Account 391.4 is depreciated at the subaccount level. The proposed life for each subaccount is shown in Appendix C-3 and remains unchanged from the 2012 GRC. On a composite basis, based on investment weighting in the account the life of 391.4 was 14.5 years in the 2012 GRC and is 12.3 years in this proceeding.9 Account 397 is depreciated at the subaccount level. The proposed life for each subaccount is shown in Appendix C-3 and remains unchanged from the 2012 GRC. On a composite basis, based on investment weighting in the account the life of 397 was 16.8 years in the 2012 GRC and is 7.7 years in this proceeding.
67
Forecast Service Lives – Account-By-Account
General Plant Most general and intangible plant accounts consist of a large volume of items
having a low value. Following FERC guidelines, the items in these accounts are not
accounted for individually, but are amortized by vintage group over the specified
service life and retired at the end of the life span.10 For example, personal
computers are amortized over a 5-year period (i.e., a 20 percent annual depreciation
rate) and when a vintage group reaches five years of age, the vintage group of
computers will be fully depreciated and retired off of the books. Following this
approach eliminates costly plant record keeping and continuous physical tracking of
the equipment. Over time, imbalances in the accumulated depreciation can occur if
there are depreciation life or rate changes and if net salvage is recorded to the books
but not reflected in the depreciation rate. These accumulated depreciation surpluses
(deficits) are amortized over this GRC cycle (2012-2014).
Account 391.1 – Office Furniture Account 391.1 consists of all costs incurred in the acquisition of office
furniture. It includes such items as modular furniture, desks, cabinets, and files used
for general utility service and not permanently attached to buildings. A 20-year
average service life is reasonable for both modular and free standing furniture.
Account 391.2 And 391.3 – Computer Equipment The assets in Account 391.2 can include Central Processing Units and
associated components (e.g., monitors, printers, etc.) when purchased as a bundled
unit, or when any of these items are purchased individually and meet the
capitalization threshold. Account 391.3 is where SCE records all investment related
to mainframe computer and file server equipment. SCE information technology
personnel state that the average life for this equipment should be five years or less.
Retention of the five-year life is reasonable.
68
Account 391.4 – Power Management System Account 391.4 contains Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
equipment for control and monitoring the SCE electrical system. Contained within
this account are the components making up the Power Management System
specifically, computer and data gathering equipment, man-machine interface, analog
and digital telemetry devices, and data center facility infrastructure. The account
consists of components that have very different lives, depending upon the technical
sophistication and other retirement factors affecting the equipment. SCE’s power
management personnel have assessed this equipment as having service lives in
categories of 7, 10, 15, 20, or 25 years. A dollar weighting of these equipment lives
yields a theoretical combined average service life of about 12.3 years. This study
recommends no change in the individual asset group lives. Each of these equipment
life categories are addressed in the following discussions.
Seven-Year Power Management System Equipment SCE’s power management personnel indicate that the equipment falling into
the 7-year category is typically modern, digital electronic computer and
microprocessor-based equipment which is subject to discontinued support by
manufacturer or replaced with newer equipment within a short period of time.
Furthermore, these devices contain rotating disk, printers and CRTs that become
obsolete and/or worn out after seven years of continuous use. The equipment
included in this group is shown in the table below.
Life (years) CPR Acct Description7 391.400 Central Processing Unit 7 391.401 CPU Memory Unit 7 391.407 Line Printer 7 391.408 Magnetic Tape Drive 7 391.409 Bulk Storage Unit 7 391.413 Display Controller 7 391.415 Full Graphics CRT Workstation 7 391.416 PC-Based Workstation 7 391.417 Teletypewriter 7 391.432 Interface/Application Processor 7 391.438 Battery System 7 391.442 Cathode Ray Tube Terminal 7 391.443 Optical Projection Unit
69
Ten-Year Power Management System Equipment SCE’s power management personnel indicate that the ten-year lived
equipment is less sophisticated than the typical 7-year items. They contain digital
electronics as well as some electromechanical devices. Most of this equipment is
specialized, proprietary and generally supported by the vendor for 10 years. Past
experience indicates this equipment will be replaced after about 10 years. The
equipment included in this group is shown in the table below.
Life (years) CPR Acct Description10 391.420 Data Acq Concentrator/Controller 10 391.422 Communication Controller 10 391.423 Data Communication Unit
10 391.428 Standard Time/Freq Clock Receiver
10 391.429 Wall Strip Chart Recorder 10 391.435 Dial-Up Remote Terminal Unit
Fifteen-Year Power Management System Equipment SCE’s power management personnel indicate that the telemetry equipment
consists of analog devices with mostly user repairable parts. They do not contain a
high degree of sophistication and with proper maintenance, these devices should last
approximately 15 years. The Uninterruptible Power System is an electromechanical
device with a rated life of about 15 years. Both of these devices become high
maintenance due to failure of passive components and/or electromechanical failures
beyond 15 years. The subaccounts included in this group are shown in the table
below.
Life (years) CPR Acct Description
15 391.426 TelemeteringReceiver/Transmitter
15 391.436 Uninterruptible Power System
Twenty-Year Power Management System Equipment SCE’s power management personnel indicate that this category contains
hardened substation field equipment used for data gathering. The equipment is
highly fault tolerant and is typically supported by the vendor for approximately 20
70
years. Also included here are Wall Strip Chart Recorders and Backup Control
Systems. These are robust analog devices containing some passive electronics
typically rated for 20 years of service. The equipment included in this group is shown
in the table below.
Life (years) CPR Acct Description20 391.405 Input/Output Unit 20 391.406 Control Console 20 391.421 Real Time Remote Terminal Unit 20 391.430 Broadcast Control System
Twenty-Five Year Power Management System Equipment SCE’s power management personnel indicate that the Dynamic Map Board
consists of structural components used to house equipment and graphically
represent the power system. The equipment is subject to physical or mechanical
deterioration due day-to-day changes/use. It should have a service life in the range
of 20 to 25 years. The subaccount for this equipment is shown in the table below.
Life(years) CPR Acct Description
25 391.419 Dynamic Map Board
Account 391.5 and 391.6 – Office Equipment; Duplicating Equipment These accounts represent investment in miscellaneous office equipment such
as video projection equipment, public address equipment, plotters, duplicating
equipment, and like assets. The current service life of five years is reasonable.
Account 393 – Stores Equipment Account 393 represents investment in equipment used for the receiving,
shipping, handling, and storage of materials and supplies for warehouses. It
includes electric pallet jacks, lifting tables, stretch wrapping machine, racking,
rotobins/storage bins, battery charger, transformer trays, hand-held scanners,
lockers, picking carts, awning, barrel grabber, warehouse heaters, screen netting,
cable cutting machine, and like assets. Based on historical Stores Equipment usage
and knowledge of warehouse equipment, the operational personnel state that this
71
equipment has a useful service life of 20 years or less. Retaining the current 20-year
service life is reasonable for this account.
Account 394 – Tools & Work Equipment Account 394 represents investment in tools and equipment for construction,
repair, maintenance, general shop, and garage, but not specifically includable in
other accounts. This study recommends retaining the current service life of 10
years.
Account 395 – Laboratory Equipment Account 395 represents investment in laboratory and field test equipment.
The account has a wide variety of equipment. It includes for example, calibrators,
baths, furnaces, current shunts, dew point meters, gauge calibrators, insulation
testers, gas leak detectors, mass comparator, micrometers, multimeters,
oscilloscopes, phase meters, watt-hour meter testing power source, power system
analyzers, self-contained portable calibration carts, sound meters, metrology
standards, thermometer, vibration analysis data pack, and volt meters.
The expected average service life of lab and test equipment is impacted by
two major retirement factors: technological obsolescence and normal “wear and
tear” from usage in both the field and lab environments. SCE engineers report that
field test equipment has service lives between 5 and 15 years, with an average
service life of about 7 or 8 years. The service lives of the lab equipment, on the
other hand, are mostly impacted by technological obsolescence and range between
2 and 8 years and average about 5 years. Accordingly, this study’s proposal to
retain the authorized average service life at 15 years is conservative.
Account 397 – Telecommunication Equipment Account 397 represents SCE’s investment in communication equipment for
the company’s system. Contained within this account are the electronic and
computer-based equipment (such as transmission equipment, dynamic network
multiplexers, data network interconnection system, and radio equipment), as well as
communication infrastructure (such as the copper and fiber optic cable, conduit,
72
microwave equipment, and the electrical power generator system). SCE
telecommunication engineers have assessed this equipment as having service lives
of 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 25, or 40 years depending on the type of equipment. These are
the same service lives the Commission authorized in the prior rate case. The
equipment lives are addressed in the following discussions.
Five-Year Communication Equipment SCE telecommunication engineers indicate that the equipment falling into the
5-year category experiences shorter lives from lack of vendor support, facility
relocations, and insufficient capacity to meet current demand. The equipment in this
group resides entirely in the following account:
Life (years) CPR Acct Description5 397.550 Data Network System
Seven-Year Communication Equipment SCE telecommunication engineers indicate that the equipment falling into
the 7-year category is typically modern, state of the art, electronic and/or
computer-based equipment which is subject to being discontinued by
manufacturer or replaced with newer equipment within a short period of years.
The equipment included in this group is shown below.
Life(years) CPR Acct Description
7 397.559 Videoconferencing System
73
Ten-Year Communication Equipment SCE telecommunication engineers state that the NetComm radio
equipment is not as sophisticated as the other electronic equipment and warrants
a 10-year service life. They further report that they are experiencing replacements
of the NetComm radios after about 10 years. This equipment is shown below.
Life(years) CPR Acct Description
10 397.098 iDirect Remote SatComm Station (VSAT)
10 397.110 Radio Base Station Control System 10 397.130 Telephone System 10 397.135 Circuit Treatment 10 397.145 Transmission Equipment 10 397.151 Lightwave Transmission Equipment 10 397.153 Sync Equipment 10 397.154 Microwave Transmission Equipment 10 397.155 Channel Equipment Assembly 10 397.160 Communications Alarm/Control System 10 397.540 Mobile/Portable Unit 10 397.561 NetComm Radio Assembly 10 397.562 NetComm Control & Monitoring System 10 397.990 Spare Parts
Fifteen-Year Communication Equipment SCE telecommunication engineers designate the equipment shown below as
having an average life of about 15 years. This group of assets is typically subject to
environmental wear. The equipment fails or is replaced as a result of unreliability
and/or high maintenance due to failure of passive components or electromechanical
failure. In the case of electronic components included in this category, the
telecommunication engineers state that these are relatively basic and not the
state-of-the-art electronics reflected in the 7-Year life category. This equipment is
shown below.
74
Life(years) CPR Acct Description
15 397.136 Cable Protection 15 397.140 Antenna Assembly 15 397.255 Public Address System (PA)
Twenty Year Communication Equipment
SCE Engineers have indicated that certain 15-year equipment will generally
last longer than expected in previous rate cases. 20 year equipment is subject to
equipment failure, facility relocation retirements, and retirement for capacity issues.
Equipment expected to last 20 years is shown in the table below.
Life (years) CPR Acct Description20 397.240 D.C. Power System 20 397.245 Electrical Power Generation System
Twenty-Five Year Communication Equipment
Although SCE has not yet had fiber optic cable as long as 25 years, SCE
telecommunication engineers believe that it may be subject to greater level of
degradation than the copper cable. They estimate that 25 years is a reasonable
life for the fiber optic cable. This equipment is shown below.
Life(years) CPR Acct Description
25 397.802 Communication Cable, Overhead, Fiber Optic
25 397.806 Communication Cable, Underground, Fiber Optic
Forty-Year Communication Equipment The balance of the communication infrastructure includes such equipment
as overhead and underground communication cable, the communication conduit
system, and antenna support structures. SCE telecommunication engineers
estimate that this equipment has an average 40-year service life. The items are
75
subject to physical or mechanical deterioration since they are subject to outdoor
environments. This equipment is shown below.
Life(years)
CPRAcct Description
40 397.330 Pole, Wood - Edison Solely Owned 40 397.430 Switch, Disconnect 40 397.600 Pole, Wood - Joint Foreign Set 40 397.790 Conductor, Open Wire Communication
40 397.801 Communication Cable, Overhead, Copper Jacketed
40 397.805 Communication Cable, Underground, Copper Jacketed
40 397.821 Communication Riser 40 397.825 Antenna Support Structure 40 397.865 Communication Conduit System
Account 398 – Miscellaneous Account 398 represents investment in miscellaneous utility equipment that
does not fit other plant accounts. Examples can include such diverse items such
as kitchen and infirmary equipment. The current service life of 20 years is a
reasonable depreciation period for this account.
IntangiblesSCE has investments in a number of intangible assets, including hydro
relicensing, radio frequencies, long-term franchise fees, capitalized software, and
land easements and right-of-ways. As previously discussed, the hydro relicensing
costs are amortized over the remaining life of the FERC project license period. This
study recommends the continued amortization of radio frequency investments over
the 40-year service life and land easements and rights-of-way over the 60-year
service life determined in prior rate case proceedings. The other categories are
discussed below.
76
Miscellaneous Intangibles The year-end 2012 plant balance for miscellaneous intangibles is
approximately $510 thousand at year-end 2012, which is largely made up of
long-term franchise costs. This study recommends allocating these costs over 20
years.
Capitalized Software The depreciable life of capitalized software reflects the estimated life prior to
investments required to replace or optimize the software as a result of technology,
vendor, or business obsolescence. This study proposes to continue the seven-year
service life category for capitalized software in addition to the three existing service
life categories of five, ten, and fifteen years determined in prior proceedings as was
adopted in the 2009 GRC. The seven-year service life category was established to
appropriately account for the depreciation of the capital costs related to SCE’s ERP
and MRTU Projects.
SCE surveyed 24 utilities to evaluate industry application of depreciable lives
for ERP systems in the last few years. The results of the survey yielded a range of
lives from five to fifteen years. Of the utilities surveyed, 13 apply a five-year life, 4
apply a seven-year life, 4 apply a ten-year life, and 3 apply a fifteen-year life. The
average depreciable life amongst the surveyed companies is 7 years, which is also
consistent with SCE’s expectations for its ERP project.
EasementsThis study does not recommend any changes to the authorized
amortization period of 60 years for its easements and rights-of-way.
Salvage Analysis When a capital asset is retired, physically removed from service and finally
disposed of, terminal retirement is said to have occurred. The residual value of a
terminal retirement is called gross salvage. Net salvage is the difference between
the gross salvage (what the asset was sold for) and the removal cost (cost to remove
and dispose of the asset). Salvage and removal cost percentages are calculated by
77
dividing the current cost of salvage or removal by the original installed cost of the
asset. Some plant assets can experience significant negative removal cost
percentages due to the timing of the original addition versus the retirement. The net
salvage analysis uses the history of the individual accounts to estimate the future net
salvage that the Company can expect in its operations. As a result, the analysis not
only looks at the historical experience of SCE, but also takes into account recent and
expected changes in operations that could reasonably lead to different future
expectations for net salvage than were experienced in the past.
Steam Production, Hydraulic and Other Production, FERC Accounts 310-346The concept behind the net salvage cost component of depreciation rates for
power plants is different from that of Transmission or Distribution assets. Power
plants are discrete units that will need to be dismantled after the end of their useful
lives. Because of this, there are two types of analysis required, one for the interim
activity and the other based on engineering studies conducted to determine the cost
to dismantle the individual units or plants at end of life. The list of the individual
account interim net salvage percentages are shown in Appendix C. The terminal or
dismantlement net salvage percentages are shown in Appendix D. The unit specific
dismantling costs were calculated in current (2012) dollars and were trended to the
year each plant was projected to retire to reflect the retirement costs in the year the
plant will cease operations. These net salvage percentages were used in the
calculation of the depreciation expense for each plant.
Site-Specific Decommissioning Analyses
Life Span Final Retirements Life span properties consist of property units that will retire concurrently at a
specific time. While mass property accounts include a large number of units, the life
span groups generally contain a small group of large units. Although there are
interim additions and retirement that occur over the service life, the plant as a whole
is subject to final retirement. SCE’s generating plant – Palo Verde, Hydro, Pebbly
Beach, Mountainview, Peakers, and Solar Photovoltaic – fit these characteristics. For
this reason, the net salvage for SCE’s generation is considered in two basic
78
elements – interim retirement net salvage and final retirement net salvage (i.e.,
“decommissioning”) – which are estimated separately. The final retirement net
salvage entails an engineering estimate of the cost to remove and dispose of the
plant and equipment extant at the time of the station’s final shut-down. For example,
at one of SCE’s generating stations, final retirement net salvage may include the
removal and disposal of the boiler and ancillary equipment, turbine generators and
ancillary equipment, condensate and feed water equipment, fuel handling systems,
the ash handling systems (which can include the bottom ash dewatering tanks,
flyash storage silos, and associated on site ash disposal area),
circulating/cooling/makeup water systems, water treatment systems, and other
miscellaneous process equipment and associated infrastructure that continue
operating up to the time the station is finally retired.
In contrast to final retirements, interim retirement net salvage is the removal
cost associated with the numerous small retirements occurring over the life of the
generating station. The interim retirements include the plant components that retire
over the operating life of the generating station – pumps, motors, etc. This net
salvage is estimated based upon an analysis of recorded interim net salvage ratios
similar to the approach followed for mass property. Finally, the interim and final net
salvage amounts are weighted together based upon the associated plant dollars to
determine a total weighted average net salvage for the generating station.
79
Summary of Results The estimated decommissioning costs at retirement are shown in the table
below. Interim retirement net salvage is relatively small with only a minor impact to
amortization levels.
Generation Decommissioning Cost
Plant
2012–2014
Authorized
(Retirement Year Dollars)
2015-2017
Proposed
Retirement
Year (Dollars)
Hydro Production $ 7,900,000 $6,876,000
Other Production – Pebbly Beach $ 654,548 $6,605,101
Other Production – Peakers $ 7,422,862 $ 12,103,028
Solar Photovoltaic $27,174,842 $81,903,634
Mountainview11 $ 20,093,161 $ 16,316,775
11 Mountainview excludes the decommissioning of Units 1 & 2 and only includes decommissioning of Units 3 & 4 at the end of the remaining life of the station.
80
Interim Retirement Net Salvage Percentages(As a percent of Gross Plant)
NuclearProduction (Palo Verde Only)
321 Structures and Improvements 0.00% 0.00%
322 Reactor Plant Equipment 0.00% 0.00%
323 Turbogenerator Units 0.00% 0.00%
324 Accessory Electric Equipment 0.00% 0.00%
325 Misc. Power Plant Equipment 0.00% 0.00%
Hydro Production Net Salvage
Ratio
IR Rate
331 Structures and Improvements -80% 0.20%
332 Reservoirs, Dams & Waterways -200% 0.05%
333 Water Wheels, Turbines & Generators*
50% 0.25%
334 Accessory Electric Equipment* -150% 0.40%
335 Misc. Power Plant Equipment* 25% 0.25%
336 Roads, Railroads & Bridges* -80% .0.50%
81
Interim Retirement Net Salvage Percentages(As a percent of Gross Plant)
Other Production
341 Structures and Improvements 0.00% 0.00%
342 Fuel Holders, Producers & Accessories
0.00% 0.00%
343 Prime Movers 0.00% 0.00%
344 Generators 0.00% 0.00%
345 Accessory Electric Equipment 0.00% 0.00%
346 Misc. Power Plant Equipment 0.00% 0.00%
* Authorized net salvage percentages applied to current estimate of interim retirement percentages.
Life Span Net Salvage Results – Plant-By-Plant The net salvage estimates for generating stations will differ significantly
depending upon a variety of factors. Although the net salvage consists of both
interim retirement net salvage and final decommissioning costs, the scale of the
decommissioning costs will generally drive the overall net salvage levels
requested. In the case of the nuclear plants, only interim retirement net salvage is
included in the filing and is estimated to be zero percent at this time. The
Commission addresses the final decommissioning costs of nuclear plants in the
Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceedings. The following sections
discuss the decommissioning estimates for the respective generation facilities.
Nuclear Net Salvage As previously mentioned, nuclear decommissioning is not addressed in this
filing. The recorded retirement activity has been insufficient to make a provision for
interim retirement net salvage at this time. This is not to suggest that there will be no
interim retirement net salvage costs to be allocated. However, the level to date does
not justify making an estimated provision in the depreciation rate at this time.
82
Hydro Net Salvage Decommissioning
Hydro generating stations generally are not expected to be
decommissioned. The company expects to continuously maintain and operate
the hydro plants indefinitely. There can be exceptions to this in the case of
catastrophic events, or if the economics do not support continued operation, or
the FERC does not relicense the hydro plant. Because decommissioning is
largely unexpected, the company is not requesting decommissioning in its
depreciation expense until such time as the decommissioning is considered a
reasonable certainty. In this filing, there is the continued decommissioning of the
San Gorgonio station. The estimated decommissioning costs are $6.9 million to
be spent through 2017.
Interim Retirement Net Salvage Hydro Net Salvage
The net salvage ratios for interim retirements are determined by analyzing
the retirement history in a manner similar to the determination of net salvage
ratios for mass property. The interim retirement net salvage ratios are estimated
as a percent of the interim retirements and weighted as a percent of the plant
balance. The net salvage ratios taken as a percent of retirements are relatively
more negative than those experienced in the coal plants. This is probably the
result of the relatively older age of the hydro-generating units. The older plant
investment means that the denominator of the net salvage ratios will be small
relative to the removal costs in the numerator. However, as shown in the table
below, because interim retirements make up a small percent of the plant balance,
the weighted average net salvage ratios for the account only range from about
negative 2 to negative 18 percent.
83
Acct Description Weighted IR Rate
331 Structures and Improvements -8.3%
332 Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways -1.8%
333 Water Wheels, Turbines & Generators -9.6%
334 Accessory Electric Equipment -13.2%
335 Misc. Power Plant Equipment -9.9%
336 Roads, Railroads & Bridges -17.6%
Pebbly Beach Net Salvage Decommissioning - Study
Pebbly Beach is a diesel-powered generation facility located on Santa
Catalina Island. The facility has six generators varying in capacity from 1.0 MW
to 2.8 MW. At the end of the 45-year life, there is very little gross salvage value
anticipated. The expectation is that the salvage value for most generating units
will be only for scrap value. At the end of that period, deterioration and
obsolescence make the units operationally unreliable, economically ineffective,
and environmentally problematic. Some retired generators might still have an
operational value. For example, it is possible that a diesel generator might be
retired earlier than the 45-year life. Since there is limited space at the Pebbly
Beach site, if there is a need for increased capacity, it may be necessary to
upgrade to a more efficient generator that takes up less space per kW
capacity. Under the circumstance that a generating unit is still fully operational
at the time of its retirement, it may have a salvage value of about $50,000.
Under this scenario, you might receive a little more salvage value, but you
would also have a shorter depreciation life. In either case, operational or not,
the cost to ship the generator off the island will cost between $50,000 and
$100,000. In other words, the final removal cost will exceed the salvage value
from the sale of the retired diesel generators as either scrap or as an
“operating generating unit.” SCE currently proposes that the depreciation rate
84
include decommissioning costs of $670,000 per generating unit, or $4.0 million in
2012 dollars. The decommissioning cost is escalated to the end of the station’s
average remaining life of 18.7 years resulting in a future decommissioning cost of
$6.6 million.
Interim Retirement Net Salvage There has been little or no interim retirement net salvage for Pebbly Beach.
At this time, SCE proposes to retain the 0 percent net salvage ratio.
Peakers Net Salvage
Decommissioning – Study SCE commissioned Arcadis to perform decommissioning cost studies for each
of its five Peaker units being built in 2007. Those estimates from 2007 were updated
to 2012 for each unit and are shown below.
Peaker Unit
DecommissioningEstimate 201212
($000s)
Center $1,287.5
Grapeland $1,276.0
McGrath $1,437.2
Mira Loma $1,517.8
Barre $1,447.1
SCE escalated these estimates to the end of the estimated life of the units for
a total future decommissioning cost of $12.1 million over the remaining life of 20.6
years.
12 Each decommissioning cost estimate is net of estimated $80 thousand salvage credit and includes an additional 20 percent on the removal portion for SCE management costs.
85
Interim Retirement Net Salvage Although there is no retirement experience for SCE’s Peakers generating
units, it would not be unreasonable to apply SCE’s experience with other generating
stations. At this time, however, this study recommends no interim retirement net
salvage for the Peakers at this time.
Solar 2 Net Salvage
DecommissioningThe retired Solar Two Project located adjacent to Reliant Resources’ Cool
Water Generating Station (CWGS) in Daggett, California has been decommissioned.
The treatment of over or under accrual is addressed in SCE’s depreciation study
testimony.
Mountainview Decommissioning
Decommissioning – Study In 1993, Halliburton NUS completed a decommissioning study for all SCE’s
gas-fired units including existing Mountainview units, formerly known as SCE’s San
Bernardino Generating Station Units 1 and 2. The existing plant consists of 2
conventional, 60 megawatt, gas-fired generating units built in 1957 and 1958. These
units have been renamed “Mountainview Units 1 and 2” and will share limited
common infrastructure with the new Mountainview units, known as “Mountainview
Units 3 and 4.” Decommissioning of Units 1 and 2 is complete and any under or over
is addressed in SCE’s depreciation study testimony. Mountainview Units 3 and 4 are
7 years old as of December 31, 2012.
The estimated decommissioning cost for units 3 & 4 is $8.9 million (2012
dollars).13 These costs are escalated to the end of the remaining life of the station,
resulting in $16.3 million. This study recommends allocation of future
decommissioning costs associated with Mountainview Units 3 & 4 over the remaining
life of the station.
13 See workpapers to this exhibit entitled “Mountain View Generating Station Demolition Cost.”
86
Interim Retirement Net Salvage Although there is limited retirement experience for SCE’s Mountainview
generating station, it would not be unreasonable to use SCE’s experience with other
generating stations. At this time, however, this study recommends no interim
retirement net salvage for Mountainview at this time.
Solar Photovoltaic Net Salvage
Decommissioning Study Decommissioning costs are estimated at $49.8 million in 2012 dollars. The
different facility types (i.e., floating, ground mount, and anchored) result in a range of
estimates from $320,090 and $547,000 per MW. Escalated to year of retirement this
estimate increases to $81.9 million.14
Interim Retirement Net Salvage There is no interim retirement net salvage forecast for the Photovoltaic units.
14See work paper in this exhibit entitled Decommissioning Solar Photovoltaic.
87
Salvage Characteristics – Non-Production Assets For each account, data for retirements, gross salvage, and cost of removal
for each account derived from 1986-2012. Moving averages, which remove timing
differences between retirement and salvage and removal cost, were analyzed over
periods varying from one to 10 years.
Transmission, Distribution and General Plant The accounts contained in Transmission, Distribution, and General Plant
were statistically analyzed using the historical cost for salvaging and removing
assets with rolling and shrinking bands from 1986-2012. A discussion of the existing
net salvage and current study recommendations for each account in those functions
follow below.
A number of factors over the years have affected the removal cost reflected
in the analysis. SCE makes use of an industry-standard compatible unit process to
generate unit estimates that allocate removal cost. In addition, the loading rates
have increased over the years adding to the loading on removal cost as well as the
cost of the assets. The calculation of the net salvage percentage is made by
dividing the net salvage (gross salvage minus removal cost) by the original cost of
the retirements. These changes over time will affect the removal cost (numerator)
after they are initiated but will only affect the retirement values (denominator) as
those assets begin to retire. All else equal, the expectation is that the new salvage
percentage will decrease over time when the higher value retirements begin to
occur. For this reason, moderation was used in selecting net salvage percentages
from the analysis. Other factors, however, are more permanent in nature such as a
greater portion of the infrastructure replacement projects related to urban areas with
their higher costs and higher permitting costs.
88
TRANSMISSION
Transmission Accounts, FERC Accounts 352-359
FERC Account 350.2 Rights of Way (proposed 0 percent Net Salvage) This group contains transmission land rights and generally has no salvage
and minimal or no cost of removal associated at retirement. A zero net salvage is
approved and is the recommendation in this study.
FERC Account 352 Transmission Structures & Improvements (proposed -35
percent net salvage)This account consists of any gross salvage and cost of removal associated
transmission structures and improvements which include buildings, fencing and
other structures found in a transmission substation. The approved net salvage for
this account is negative 30 percent as recommended by SCE and approved in the
2012 GRC which was a decrease from the previous net salvage rate of negative 40
percent in the 2009 GRC. In the most recent band, net salvage percentages range
from negative 50.05 to negative 77.35 percent. There is some variability in the
results and the retirement level is not robust enough to support significant
movement. As a refinement to the 2012 GRC authorized net salvage rate it is
necessary to reflect some movement in the direction of the recent indications, a
negative 35 percent net salvage is the proposal for this account.
FERC Account 353 Transmission Station Equipment (proposed -15 percent net
salvage)This account consists of any gross salvage and cost of removal associated
with transmission substation equipment, from transformers and circuit breakers to
switchgear, as well as shorter-lived electronic equipment. The approved net salvage
for this account is negative 5 percent. In the 2012 GRC, SCE proposed to move in
the direction of the increasingly negative net salvage being experienced for this
account by requesting a negative 10 percent net salvage. The experienced net
salvage is continuing to move more negative. The most recent 5 and 10 year
89
moving averages show negative 20.92 percent and negative 18.22 percent net
salvage respectively. From the information available, the recent retirement mix of
long-lived versus shorter-lived assets is comparable to the mix of assets in the
account and emergency work is not generally expected for this type of asset. As
addressed earlier, the recommended change is conservative based on historical
accounting changes. Conservative movement in the direction of the indicated
experience, a negative 15 percent net salvage for this account is recommended.
FERC Account 354 Transmission Towers & Fixtures (proposed -100 percent
net salvage) This account consists of any gross salvage and cost of removal associated
with transmission towers and fixtures, which are used to transmit electricity at a
voltage of 69 kV and above. The approved net salvage for this account is negative
70 percent. In the 2012 GRC, SCE proposed to move in the direction of the
increasingly negative net salvage being experienced for this account by requesting a
negative 85 percent net salvage. The experienced net salvage is continuing to
move more negative and a more negative recommendation is necessary. The most
recent 5 and 10 year moving averages show negative 200.85 percent and negative
184.55 percent net salvage respectively. As mentioned earlier, historical retirement
pricing levels are lower than are expected at some point in the future as a
percentage of removal cost and the net salvage recommendation is moderated as
compared to recent experience. The processes used to charge the level of removal
cost expenditures is expected to be consistent in the future (e.g. the industry
standard compatible unit process) and it would not be expected that emergency
work would generally be required for this type of asset. All indications are that SCE
will continue to experience a more negative percentage than the level currently
authorized. Conservatively moving in the direction of the experience over most of
the last ten years, a negative 100 percent net salvage for this account is
recommended.
90
FERC Account 355 Transmission Poles & Fixtures (proposed -85 percent net
salvage)This account consists of any gross salvage and cost of removal associated
with transmission poles and fixtures, which are used to transmit electricity at a
voltage of 69 kV and above. The approved net salvage for this account is negative
70 percent. In the 2012 GRC, SCE proposed to move in the direction of the
increasingly negative net salvage being experienced for this account by requesting a
negative 85 percent net salvage. The experienced net salvage is continuing to
move more negative and a more negative recommendation is necessary. The most
recent 5 and 10 year moving averages show negative 107.18 percent and negative
114.64 percent net salvage respectively. The processes used to charge the level of
removal cost expenditures is expected to be consistent in the future (e.g. the
industry standard compatible unit process) and it would not be expected that
emergency work would generally be required for this type of asset. All indications
are that SCE will continue to experience a more negative percentage than the level
currently authorized. In the same way as Account 354 above, the recommendation
is conservatively moving in the direction of the experience over most of the last ten
years and a negative 85 percent net salvage for this account is recommended.
FERC Account 356 Transmission Overhead Conductor & Devices (proposed
-100 percent net salvage) This account consists of any gross salvage and cost of removal associated
with Transmission overhead conductors, which are used to transmit electricity at
voltages of 69 kV and above. The approved net salvage for this account is negative
80 percent. In the 2012 GRC, SCE proposed to move in the direction of the
increasingly negative net salvage being experienced for this account by requesting a
negative 85 percent net salvage. The experienced net salvage is continuing to
move more negative and a more negative recommendation is necessary. The most
recent 5 and 10 year moving averages show negative 203.55 percent and negative
171.19 percent net salvage respectively. The processes used to charge the level of
91
removal cost expenditures is expected to be consistent in the future (e.g. the
industry standard compatible unit process) and it would not be expected that
emergency work would generally be required for this type of asset. All indications
are that SCE will continue to experience a more negative percentage than the level
currently authorized. In the same way that Account 354 and 355 are experiencing
lower relative retirement prices and stable removal cost processes, the
recommendation is conservatively moving in the direction of the experience over
most of the last ten years and a negative 100 percent net salvage for this account is
recommended.
FERC Account 357 Transmission Underground Conduit (proposed 0 percent
net salvage) This account consists of any gross salvage and cost of removal associated
with underground conduit. The approved net salvage for this account is 0 percent.
The most recent 5 and 10 year moving averages show negative 39.98 and negative
35.79 percent respectively. Since retirement data is limited and there is little
expectation for removal cost for the conduit (although there may be some for vaults)
assets, this study recommends that no change in net salvage occur in this account.
Consistent with life recommendations in this account, retention of 0 percent net
salvage for this account is recommended.
FERC Account 358 Transmission Underground Conductor & Devices
(proposed -15 percent net salvage) This account consists of any gross salvage and cost of removal associated
with underground conductor. The lines are low pressure oil filled; paper wrapped
500 MCM copper cable. The approved net salvage for this account is negative 20
percent. Data is somewhat limited for this account. The most recent 5 and 10 year
moving averages show negative 16.35 and 22.17 percent respectively. Since
retirement net salvage experience is showing lower negative net salvage this study
recommends moving to negative 15 percent net salvage for this account.
92
FERC Account 359 Transmission Roads and Trails (proposed 0 percent net
salvage)This account consists of any gross salvage and cost of removal associated
with roads and trails. There is 0 percent approved net salvage for this account.
The most recent 5 and 10 year moving averages show negative 23.51 and negative
23.51 percent for both periods. Since retirement data is extremely limited and there
is an expectation for little removal cost for these assets, this study recommends
retention of 0 percent net salvage for this account.
Distribution Accounts, FERC Accounts 360.2-373.0
FERC Account 360.2 Rights of Way (proposed 0 percent Net Salvage) This group contains land rights and generally has no salvage and minimal or
no cost of removal associated at retirement. A zero net salvage is approved and is
the recommendation in this study.
FERC Account 361.0 Structures & Improvements (proposed -25 percent Net
Salvage)This grouping contains facilities ranging from fencing and other structures
found in distribution substations. The currently approved net salvage percent for
this account is negative 25 percent. The most recent 5 and 10 year moving
averages show negative 28.64 and negative 25.85 percent respectively. This study
recommends retaining the negative 25 percent net salvage for this account.
FERC Account 362.0 Station Equipment (proposed -30 percent Net Salvage) This grouping contains a wide variety of distribution substation equipment,
from transformers and circuit breakers to switchgear, as well as shorter-lived
electronic equipment. The currently approved net salvage percentage is negative
20 percent. In the 2012 GRC, SCE requested and was granted an incremental
93
movement toward the experienced level of negative net salvage being realized.
This study recommends an additional incremental movement toward the
experienced net salvage. The most recent 5 and 10 year moving averages show
negative 57.77 and negative 43.04 percent respectively. From the information
available, the recent retirement mix of long-lived versus shorter-lived assets is
comparable to the mix of assets in the account. The processes used to charge the
level of removal cost expenditures is expected to be consistent in the future (e.g. the
industry standard compatible unit process) and it would not generally be expected
that emergency work would reduce as the assets in this account age. All indications
are that SCE will continue to experience a more negative percentage than the level
currently authorized. Moving in the direction of the experience over the last several
years, this study recommends moving to negative 30 percent net salvage for this
account.
FERC Account 364.0 Poles, Towers, & Fixtures (proposed -225 percent Net
Salvage) This account contains poles and towers of various material types: wood,
concrete, and steel. The currently approved net salvage percentage is negative 190
percent. In the 2012 GRC, SCE proposed to move in the direction of the
increasingly negative net salvage being experienced for this account by requesting a
negative 200 percent net salvage. The experienced net salvage is continuing to
move more negative and a more negative recommendation is necessary. The most
recent 5 and 10 year moving averages show negative 538.52 and negative 413.05
percent respectively. As mentioned earlier, historical retirement pricing levels are
lower than are expected at some point in the future as a percentage of removal cost
and the net salvage recommendation is moderated as compared to recent
experience. The processes used to charge the level of removal cost expenditures is
expected to be consistent in the future (e.g. the industry standard compatible unit
process) and it is not expected that the level of emergency work would decrease as
these assets age. All indications are that SCE will continue to experience a more
94
negative percentage than the level currently authorized. The recommendation for
this account is conservatively moving in the direction of the experience over most of
the last ten years and a negative 225 percent net salvage for this account is
recommended.
FERC Account 365.0 Overhead Conductor & Devices (proposed -125 percent
Net Salvage) This account consists of overhead conductor of various thickness, as well as
various switches and reclosers. The currently approved net salvage percentage is
negative 110 percent. In the 2012 GRC, SCE requested and was granted an
incremental movement toward the experienced level of negative net salvage being
realized. This study recommends an additional incremental movement toward the
experienced net salvage. The most recent 5 and 10 year moving averages show
negative 277.48 and negative 200.35 percent respectively. The processes used to
charge the level of removal cost expenditures is expected to be consistent in the
future (e.g. the industry standard compatible unit process) and it would not generally
be expected that emergency work would reduce as the assets in this account age.
All indications are that SCE will continue to experience a more negative percentage
than the level currently authorized. Moving in the direction of the experience over
the last several years, this study recommends moving to negative 125 percent net
salvage for this account.
FERC Account 366.0 Underground Conduit (proposed -40 percent Net
Salvage) This account consists of Distribution conduit, duct banks, vaults, manholes,
and ventilating system equipment. The currently approved net salvage percentage
is negative 20 percent. This study recommends an incremental movement toward
the experienced net salvage. The most recent 5 and 10 year moving averages
show negative 124.78 and negative 107.18 percent respectively. In a few of the
95
recent years, vaults and manholes (which may have a higher removal cost) have
has a higher portion of retirement than the mix of assets in the account and the
recommendation takes that into account in the small movement toward the recent
experience. The processes used to charge the level of removal cost expenditures is
expected to be consistent in the future (e.g. the industry standard compatible unit
process) and it would not generally be expected that emergency work would reduce
as the assets in this account age. All indications are that SCE will continue to
experience a more negative percentage than the level currently authorized.
Conservatively moving in the direction of the recent experience over the long-term
averages in the last ten years, this study recommends moving to negative 40
percent net salvage for this account.
FERC Account 367.0 Underground Conductor (proposed -80 percent Net
Salvage)This account consists of Distribution conductor, switches, and switchgear.
The currently approved net salvage percentage is negative 60 percent. This study
recommends an incremental movement toward the experienced net salvage. The
most recent 5 and 10 year moving averages show negative 162.30 and negative
141.55 percent respectively. The processes used to charge the level of removal
cost expenditures is expected to be consistent in the future (e.g. the industry
standard compatible unit process) and it would not generally be expected that
emergency work would reduce as the assets in this account age. All indications are
that SCE will continue to experience a more negative percentage than the level
currently authorized. Conservatively moving in the direction of the recent
experience over the long-term averages in the last ten years, this study
recommends moving to negative 80 percent net salvage for this account
FERC Account 368.0 Line Transformer (proposed -20 percent Net Salvage) This account consists of line transformers, regulators, and capacitors. The
currently approved net salvage percentage is 0 percent. In the 2012 GRC, SCE
96
proposed to move in the direction of the increasingly negative net salvage being
experienced for this account by requesting a negative 10 percent net salvage. The
experienced net salvage is continuing to move more negative and a more negative
recommendation is necessary. The most recent 5 and 10 year moving averages
show negative 47.76 and negative 27.32 percent respectively. The processes used
to charge the level of removal cost expenditures is expected to be consistent in the
future (e.g. the industry standard compatible unit process) and it would not generally
be expected that emergency work would reduce as the assets in this account age.
All indications are that SCE will continue to experience a more negative percentage
than the level currently authorized. Conservatively moving in the direction of that
trend, this study recommends moving to negative 20 percent net salvage for this
account.
FERC Account 369.0 Services (proposed -125 percent Net Salvage)This account includes overhead and underground services. The currently
approved net salvage percentage is negative 85 percent. In the 2012 GRC, SCE
proposed to move in the direction of the increasingly negative net salvage being
experienced for this account by requesting a negative 100 percent net salvage. The
experienced net salvage is continuing to move more negative and a more negative
recommendation is necessary. The most recent 5 and 10 year moving averages
show negative 431.29 and negative 244.44 percent respectively. The processes
used to charge the level of removal cost expenditures is expected to be consistent in
the future (e.g. the industry standard compatible unit process) and it would not
generally be expected that emergency work would reduce as the assets in this
account age. All indications are that SCE will continue to experience a more
negative percentage than the level currently authorized. Moving toward the longer
term experience for this account, this study recommends moving to negative 125
percent net salvage.
FERC Account 370.0 Meters SmartConnect (proposed -5 percent Net Salvage)
97
This account includes all Distribution SmartConnect meters installed since
2007. The currently approved net salvage percentage is negative 5 percent.
Retirement data is extremely limited. The overall moving average for this account is
negative 11.66 percent. Given the small amount of historical data available, this
study recommends retaining the currently approved negative 5 percent net salvage
for this account.
FERC Account 370.0 Meters Legacy This account includes all Distribution legacy meters. The deployment of the
SmartConnect meters has been completed and the unamortized balance of legacy
meters already includes retirement net salvage incurred. This balance is being
amortized through 2017 per the Company’s 2012 GRC decision.
FERC Account 373.0 Street Lighting (-40 percent Net Salvage) This account includes all Distribution streetlights, conductor, conduit,
luminaire, and standards. The currently approved net salvage percentage is
negative 20 percent. In the 2012 GRC, SCE proposed to move in the direction of
the increasingly negative net salvage being experienced for this account by
requesting a negative 30 percent net salvage. The experienced net salvage is
continuing to move more negative and a more negative recommendation is
necessary. The most recent 5 and 10 year moving averages show negative 86.82
and negative 76.89 percent respectively. The processes used to charge the level of
removal cost expenditures is expected to be consistent in the future (e.g. the
industry standard compatible unit process) and it would not generally be expected
that emergency work would reduce as the assets in this account age. All indications
are that SCE will continue to experience a more negative percentage than the level
currently authorized. In a few of the recent years, fixtures (which may be expected
to have a lower negative net salvage) have has a higher portion of retirement than
the mix of assets in the account. However, the recommendation does not reflect the
likely higher negative net salvage that will occur when larger numbers of electroliers
98
are removed. Conservatively moving in the direction of the recent experience, this
study recommends moving to negative 40 percent net salvage for this account.
GENERAL PLANT
FERC Account 390.0 Structures & Improvements (-10 percent Net Salvage) This account includes any salvage and removal cost related to structures and
improvements used for general utility operations (not the land on which the buildings
reside, which could have resale value). The currently authorized net salvage rate for
this account is negative 5 percent. The most recent 5 and 10 year moving averages
show negative 21.97 and negative 20.53 percent respectively. Moving in the
direction of the experience over the last several years, this study recommends
moving to negative 10 percent net salvage for this account.
Other General Plant Besides the Structures and Improvements discussed above, General
Plant also includes various miscellaneous assets such as office furniture,
computers, stores and laboratory equipment, telecommunication equipment, and
tools and work equipment. Generally, these assets have experienced little or no
net salvage or sporadic retirement history and do not warrant the inclusion of net
salvage in the current amortization rate. Instead, any recorded net salvage
amounts (positive or negative) will be allocated through the amortization rate
updates in future rate proceedings, as necessary.15
15 One exception is Power-Operated Equipment. The Power Operated Equipment amortization is not recovered through depreciation expense, but is cleared through a clearing account and charged to O&M or capital work orders. The Power-Operated Equipment subaccount has experienced a positive net salvage of about 25 percent, which will continue to be incorporated in the amortization rate.